--=-yF1h78FJFk0xEbOvSZ4V
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 11:08, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> I think you may be misunderstanding my proposal as I refined it in a=20
> follow on posting. Option (a) is legal but inconvenient. Option (b) has=20
>   to be "in writing". Since we are giving them a form anyway that seemed=20
> to be the place to do it. Option (c) is out unless we have a written=20
> offer ourselves. Most of us don't.

I like the train of thinking (really).  However, in this case I think
you are going to strong.  If you do not have the source (or a written
guarantee for it) shame on you. :)

I suspect all the major distribution vendors are guaranting source
availability (or they could be in violation of the GPL)  Certainly if
you know of ones violating this please submit proper complaints to the
Free Software Foundation.

That said, another reason why we should pick a distribution and try to
make that the "standard".  For example Debian makes it very easy to grab
the sources.

The spirit of section 3 is that commercial vendors (those making or
exchanging money) should be liable to share the wealth by being
obligated to propogate the source.  Those not exchanging money should be
able to distribute with just pointing to the source in which they
obtained the binaries for their source agreement.

> > No.  They should be informed they can get the source in the same ways
> > you can get the source. :)
>=20
> I'm sorry but simply telling somebody verbally that they can get the=20
> source in the same ways that I can get the source while I hand them a=20
> binary is a clear violation of the GPL. I got the binary off some=20

I don't think it is.  If you can actually point them to a place to
download the source of what binaries you are giving them (or provide a
written commitment to provide the source upon request) AND you are not
exchanging money (i.e. non-commericial)  I dont think you have violated
anything.

In the case of Gentoo install you actually are getting the sources in
the case of Debian you can actually add apt-get lines to point to the
sources of the binaries you are installing.  I think this more than
sufficiently covers section 3 in the case of PLUG.=20

For other distributions I am not as confident, but I would be suprised
if there isn't a way to grab Red Hat sources.

> company web site and I can't make any representation that the website=20
> will be available for three years. No such representation was made to=20
> me. PLUG can't distribute under (c) unless PLUG has written commitments=20
> under (b) in hand. Your notion that one can receive under (a) and=20
> distribute under (c) is *exactly opposite* the plain language in the=20
> GPL.

I think you are miscontruing my point.  The fact that you are pointing
someone to the sources is enough.  If they choose not to download them
that is up to you.  We should NOT be installing GPL software that we can
not readily point to the source.

=46rom the GPL FAQ:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSou=
rce


How can I make sure each user who downloads the binaries also gets the
source?
       =20
        You don't have to make sure of this. As long as you make the
        source and binaries available so that the users can see what's
        available and take what they want, you have done what is
        required of you. It is up to the user whether to download the
        source.=20
       =20
        Our requirements for redistributors are intended to make sure
        the users can get the source code, not to force users to
        download the source code even if they don't want it.
       =20
Since we are not commerical entity we need only point back to the entity
that offerred us the source.  This of course is my interpretation.  If
it makes us feel better, I can get clarification from Eben or RMS as to
their direct position.

> The distribution language of the GPL was written at a time when 'binary=20
> distribution' meant sending a tape through the mail. It is frankly a=20
> PITA to comply with it literally and I understand that FSF is coming=20
> out with new language. Until they do, I think organizations like PLUG=20
> should be willing to jump through a few hoops to be technically in=20
> compliance.

You are correct that you have to offer a mail order.  I am not sure the
FSF will change that, even in future language revisions.

--=20
Derek Neighbors
GNU Enterprise
http://www.gnuenterprise.org
derek@gnue.org

Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=3Ddneighbo

--=-yF1h78FJFk0xEbOvSZ4V
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA/jMgSHb99+vQX/88RAklgAJ9XDIlkEGA5OKLCw7hZKunDaWi2OQCfSTZM
WpBWd0oWXJQvQncqFT9U+X0=
=ZmzJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-yF1h78FJFk0xEbOvSZ4V--