Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
>>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
Thomas> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
>> When the FSF starts playing by these rulkes, perhaps we shall
>> have the basis of a discussion.
Thomas> You seem to be regarding the FSF as the enemy here, and I think that's
Thomas> unlikely to help.
*Sigh*. No, the FSF is not the enemy. I think that my
arguments point out, though, that a modicum of common sense would be
most welcome in this frenzy of zealous and nitpicking attention to
the fine print; and point out the these are impractical and
unreasonable standards that even the FSF can not adhere to.
Thomas> The issue is about the downloading of advertised things, not
Thomas> things like ftp:.../bin/ls or the like. The question of
Thomas> intent to distribute does matter.
And I holds that Debian has no intent to distribute software
without giving the users a copy of the GPL. You, on the other hand,
are assiduously inventing scenarios where a user goes to
exztraordinary lengths to sheild hersolf from any knowledge of the
GPL while proceeding to download a part of the Debian offerings and
thuus be in violation.
We distribute a distribution. We offer updates to the
distribution. The distribution always contains the GPL. Updates may
not, but then, the user already has the GPL when downloading the
updates.
Thomas> The intent of Debian is to distribute not just a complete
Thomas> system, but also individual packages. (Consider security
Thomas> alerts, which suggest that people download specific package
Thomas> files.)
These are obviously meant to be updates, just like the patch
files that the FSF distributes. (I note that few diff.gz files
actually contain the GPL).
Thomas> The distribution of those packages requires the GPL
Thomas> to be given along with the binaries, and in fact it isn't.
Thomas> It isn't like we offer it and the user says "no, I've alread
Thomas> got it", it just isn't there.
Any Debian box already has the GPL. Whetehr he gets an
additional copy in the update is immaterial, really. May I invoke
the deity of common-sense again? (I am sure my pantheon has a diety
for common sense -- after all, we have 64million of them).
Thomas> The FSF almost plays by that rule too: but you are quite
Thomas> right that for patch files, and test binaries, and things
Thomas> like that, bits of GPL'd binary or source are frequently
Thomas> advertised in a way that's very parallel to the Debian
Thomas> situation. I asked RMS about that, and he decided that he
Thomas> would need to ask the attorneys about it, because it is
Thomas> indeed curious. So we may not know more until they get back
Thomas> to him.
I still think this is moot. We already know that this is
accepted practice, not only by Debina, but by the FSF. Has been for
over a decade. It would take a lot to convince me that we had intent
to distribute software without the licence, and that suddenly all
this common practices are illegal.
manoj
--
Felson's Law: To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal
from many is research.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: