Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included

[ferret@phonewave.net]

On 29 Nov 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

> Rando Christensen <illuzion@xanthor.net> writes:
> 
> > What does everyone think? Is this too farfetched of a plan, or is it a
> > Good Idea?
> 
> It's not a horrid idea, but it doesn't solve the problem, which is
> that the GPL requires that you give a copy of the GPL to anyone you
> give the binary for a program to.
> 

Uh.. I STILL don't read the GPL this way.

0) Does not deal with where to include full text of the license.
1) Deals with including license with verbatim copy of source code.
2) Deals with modifying and distributing under terms of section 1.
3) Deals with distributing in executable form:
   a) Accompany executable code with the complete machine-readable
      source code under terms of sections 1 and 2.
   b) Accompany executable code with a written offer for the complete
      machine-readable source code under terms of sections 1 and 2.
   c) Accompany executable code with a copy of 3b for non-commercial
      (I read private-party) redistribution from 3b.
   Does not explicitely mention where to include full text of the license.
4) Can't modify or distribute except under the GPL; license termination
   does not nest.
5) Are not compelled to accept the license.
6) Licensing is not nested; all licensing is from the original licensor.
7) Deals with the interaction of legal judgements and other obligations
   with the license.
8) License may be geographically amended by the original licensor to
   exclude countries where use or distribution is restricted by law.
9) The FSF may revise the license, but each revision will have a unique
   version number.
.... ; This is where I get too tired to summarise.

We are dealing with section 3 when we distribute debs, since they are
executable machine code packaged with installation instructions.
Section 3 does not explicitely mention including the text of the GPL; it
only mandates including the program source code or an offer thereof under
the terms of sections 1 and 2. We fulfill this currently by making the
source available through apt, and by offering official CD images including
source CDs.
Section 2 deals with modifications to the program source code
and refers copying and distribution to section 1. It does not mention
including the text of the GPL either.
Section 1 deals with copying and distributing the program's source code,
which is explicit in the first sentence. Here it does state that a copy of
the GPL must be included with the program, but it also says that the
program is the source code.

IF RMS really means that a copy of the GPL be incuded with the program's
executable code, I would respectfully request that he amend GPL section 3
to make it explicit.

; Note: I'm not a lawyer, just a Cognitive Science major pursuing human
; language understanding.