GPL Redistribution was --> Re: InstallFest menu - I need fee…

On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 09:41 AM, Derek Neighbors wrote:

> On Sat, 2003-10-11 at 18:18, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 11, 2003, at 05:13 PM, der.hans wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> If they provide proprietary software to be installed ( Neverwinter
>>> Nights,
>>> Oracle, etc. ), then they are liable for maintaining whatever they
>>> need to
>>> maitain to ensure that they're legally using it. PLUG won't knowingly
>>> help
>>> them use it improperly, e.g. original install CDs.
>>
>> I'm concerned about the other side of this issue. If we install GPL
>> software and don't offer them the source then we have violated the
>> GPL.
>
> Where do you see this in the GPL? Please re-read section 3. You have
> three choices about distributing the source code.
>
> (a) Hand the code with the program. (what you are suggesting)
>
> (b) Hand the code with a written offer to give the code if asked, valid
> for three years.
>
> (c) Give the information you recieved with the program (i.e. someone
> elses a or b) This is only available for non-commerical redistribution
> and the clause I would expect PLUG to use. ;)
>
>> If we do provide source then we will end up burning a lot of disks
>> that
>> will end up in a landfill. Shouldn't the form provide a check box
>> where
>> the user can say they were informed of their right to have the source
>> and they chose to waive that right?
>

I think you may be misunderstanding my proposal as I refined it in a
follow on posting. Option (a) is legal but inconvenient. Option (b) has
to be "in writing". Since we are giving them a form anyway that seemed
to be the place to do it. Option (c) is out unless we have a written
offer ourselves. Most of us don't.

> No. They should be informed they can get the source in the same ways
> you can get the source. :)

I'm sorry but simply telling somebody verbally that they can get the
source in the same ways that I can get the source while I hand them a
binary is a clear violation of the GPL. I got the binary off some
company web site and I can't make any representation that the website
will be available for three years. No such representation was made to
me. PLUG can't distribute under (c) unless PLUG has written commitments
under (b) in hand. Your notion that one can receive under (a) and
distribute under (c) is *exactly opposite* the plain language in the
GPL.

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