Brian Mays <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If we're going to be so anal about interpreting the GPL, then why > doesn't anyone mention the requirements for distributing the source. > Certainly, by a strict interpretation of the license (along with an > active imagination for dreaming up scenarios whereby a deb package > can end up on the far end of the world, away from anyone or anything > knowledgeable about GNU or GPLed software), we should be including the > GPLed sources in our packages.
Except that the GPL section 3 explicitly says that providing a copy of the source on the same download site counts as "accompanying". Different verbs are used for the requirement to include the license text itself in section 1; the "put it on the same site" clause does not really apply. The point is that we can, do, and should distribute individual packages in many different contexts.
