Re: Distributing GPL software.
Alexander Terekhov writes:
> On 12 Jan 2006 11:53:56 -0500, Michael Poole <mdpoole@troilus.org> wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov writes:
> >
> > > On 1/12/06, Mahesh T. Pai <paivakil@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Download the binary and the *corresponding* source code. While
> > > > distributing only the binary. put on the CD, a file saying that the
> > > > source code to every binary on the CD is available from you to the
> > > > person you gave the cd. (``Sources are available from <address>''
> > > > will do). Now, if somebody says that you are doing commercial
> > > > distribution, you can comply by giving sources to the persons who
> > > > contact you at the <address>. (you now comply with 3(b) ).
> > >
> > > Hey Carrera, just ignore what the GNUtians say. If somebody says
> > > that you must give sources "or else", reply "17 USC 109, piss off".
> >
> > Here is a suggestion of how you can put your bizarre legal theory to
> > the test:
> >
> > 1) Buy a copy of relatively pricey commercial software.
>
> Nah. I prefer something for free. Several moons ago when I was challenged
> by another GNUtian, I've "bought" (for USD 0) winxp64 download from
> Microsoft and resold it on a CD for EURO 6.50 on ebay.de. Item 7133325141.
>
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2004-12/msg00095.html
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2005-03/msg00084.html
>
> And I'm still not in prison. How come?
You skipped step #5 in my suggested process, which is necessary for a
variety of economic and PR reasons.
Michael Poole
Reply to: