Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> writes:
> >>"Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell, BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
>
> Thomas> One way that it certainly matters is that nobody at GNU advertises
> Thomas> individual binaries on ftp.gnu.org in that way for download.
>
> Thomas> Debian advertises individual .debs for download in many contexts.
>
> I am not sure I agree with this statement.
Well, consider debian-security, for one.
> Thomas> This is an important difference. It's not the whole story, but it's
> Thomas> part of it.
>
> This is news to me. Given that the GPL does not mention this
> important advertizing distinction, who is it exactly that is
> assigning pririties to this extra-licence issues, and where can we
> get an authoritative list of additional constraints and guidelines to
> using the GPL?
It's not a special extra distinction, it's part of figuring out what
it counts as to distribute a thing. If you put a big composite thing
on a download site, whether it's one thing or a bunch of things is
basically determined by your intent, which is measured by your
statements and your actions.
Reply to: