[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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?

Reply to: