On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 08:12:20PM +0100, Richard Davies wrote: > > Putting on my devil's-advocate hat to troll for a minute, why isn't > this GPL violation (or LGPL or whatever for this specific package)? > > Given we've got separate binary and source packages, it would seem > that we probably don't fall under the "accompany the work with the > source code" clauses, in which case don't we have to be able to > provide source for up to three years after we distribute any binaries? But we do provide the human readable source to our packages. It is all fully available to you at the time that you download the binaries from one of the Debian mirrors. This allows us to distribute the source under section 3a of the GPL v2. If we wanted to ship binary-only cds, then we would fall under section 3b. However, since we don't ship any cds at all, we don't have that problem. noah -- _______________________________________________________ | Web: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/ | PGP Public Key: http://web.morgul.net/~frodo/mail.html
Attachment:
pgp7YkXMySARO.pgp
Description: PGP signature