Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 12:15:39AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 12:24:35PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> > Not exactly. If I upload /bin/ls from my system to a BBS without
> > providing source, I am violating the GPL. If I start distributing
> > GPL'd .debs without source (whether or not the .debs have a copy of
> > the GPL), I am violating the GPL.
> Different issue. The GPL appears to claim that you must distribute
> a copy of the license with the binaries, even when you ship the source
> separately.
We do. It's in the source.
Once again, I bring up the point of offering ftp access to an unpacked
build directory for a GPL'd program. Someone could download the
binary without downloading the source *or* a copy of the GPL. I don't
see why tarring up the binary (or "deb"ing it) makes a difference.
There's nothing in the GPL that says "binaries offered _with_ the
source must have a separate copy of the GPL physically attached to the
binary".
We *do* distribute the GPL with the binaries. It's in the source
tarball. Either it's illegal to provide the build directory as I
suggest above or we're doing nothing wrong.
--
Chris Waters xtifr@dsp.net | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or xtifr@debian.org | above, but it is too long to fit into
| this .signature file.
Reply to: