On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 10:28:20 +0200 Sven Luther wrote: > So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers > don't cause any kind of distribution problem, while i strongly believe > that the GPL clause saying that all the distribution rights under the > GPL are lost if you cannot abide by all points, including the > requirement for sources. AFAIK, you are right: sourceless GPLv2'd works cannot legally be distributed. The reason is that if you do so, you are not complying with section 3. of GPLv2: you cannot accompany the binary with what you do not have available (3a), you cannot issue an offer to give what you do not have available (3b) and you do not have any offer to pass on noncommercially (3c). Of course some copyright holders could well mean to grant anyone permission to redistribute and messed up with licenses out of ignorance. But other ones could have set this up as a trap to have the possibility to sue at whim... Hence, the situation should be clarified with the respective copyright holders (rather than ignored). Possible resolutions, in decreasing order of desirability: * the copyright holder releases the actual source code and everyone gets happy ;-) * some heroic hackers develop a DFSG-free replacement and Debian switches to that masterpiece * the copyright holder relicenses the work under a license that doesn't mandate source availability and the work is moved to the non-free archive * Debian stops distributing the sourceless GPL'd work The usual disclaimers: IANAL, IANADD. -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpnGqIDVyEwq.pgp
Description: PGP signature