Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 07:40:11PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > I read it, I just don't agree that it matters in this case.
> A more authoritive source disagrees with you.. RMS wrote the GPL
> so I'll trust his opinion above yours.
Okay, well RMS can quote the specific licence section he believes
we are violating.
I had a quick review of it and nothing stood out for me: 4 -> 12
don't apply. 0 -> 2 don't apply.
3 talks about binary distribution obligations and says
"If distribution of executable or object code is made by
offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering
equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place
counts as distribution of the source code, even though third
parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object
Which is how distributors distrub Debian binary CDs. We need more
than an "I believe".
Linux.Conf.Au -- http://linux.conf.au/
17th - 20th January, -- Alan Cox, David Miller,
Sydney, Australia -- Tridge, maddog and you?