> -----Original Message----- > From: Charlie Brady [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 3:47 PM > Subject: Re: [e-smith-devinfo] GPL issues (was: e-smith.com (was: SME > Server V5 with ServiceLin k announced)) > Not so. Consult a nearby copy of COPYING. There you will find: > > ... > b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three > years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your > cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete > machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be > distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium > customarily used for software interchange; or, > ... > > Note, "any third party". True, but this does not mean making it FREELY available, as in including source with executables or posting source to a public archive. You may distribute the program without the source AND never make the source available UNLESS asked for it. As I noted elsewhere, there is debate as to what "any third party" means. In common language that would appear to mean anyone and everyone, but in legals terms it apparently means something else. That is the problem with legal documents, especially those written using common language. When it comes time to interpret the document the terms used are subject to legal interpretation, which is often quite different from the common understanding. It is understood (in the US, at least) that common language loses its common understanding when used in a legal context (which is why in the US it is always a good idea to have even the simplest of legal documents drafted or at least reviewed by a qualified attorney.) > > this means. Either it means that if I distribute the > software, then I must > > make code available to ANYONE who asks for it. > > That seems pretty clear to me. Even if that is the correct interpretation, this does not mean that just because someone finds my GPL code and says "Gee, I'd like to have the source for this" that the source must be readily and publically available. It only means that IF they want it, and IF they bother to ask, that I MUST provide it to them (and AT A REASONABLE COST to cover my expenses, if I so choose.) Just because they ask does not obligate me to provide it to them FREE OF CHARGE. The point I had hoped to convey was that the GPL is too often misread to mean that EVERYTHING is free, as in "no charge, no money changes hands, no bounderies, mine-mine-mine." That is not the case. Quoting the Preamble of the GPL itself: "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price." And from the fsf.org site defining "free" software (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html): '"Free software" is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of "free" as in "free speech," not as in "free beer."' Too often discussions and interpretations of the GPL neglect these fundamental principles and reach the opposite conclusion. Anyway, too much philosophy for one day ;-) Scott -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
