Oded Arbel wrote: > On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 13:36 +0200, Shachar Shemesh wrote: > >> At least last time I checked, anyone that requested it got access to an >> FTP site with the sources for all modified user space utilities on >> SPLAT. This is technically a violation (GPL requires that commercial >> distribution offer the sources even if they are available elsewhere) >> > > How do you figure so ? Indeed, COPYING reads: > <snip> > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program ... provided that you also do > one of the following: > ... > b) Accompany it with a written offer ... to give any third party ... > a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code > <snap> > > If SPLAT contains an unmodified version of, say, "ls", the license states that CheckPoint must either give you the sources, or give you an offer to give you the sources, for ls. In fact, the license cares not whether CP changed "ls" in any way or not. The GPL FAQ clearly states that it's CP itself that must give you the sources, it cannot rely on anyone else to provide said sources. Some de-facto slack is cut for non-commerical distribution, where people are told "if you did not modify the sources, you can get away with simply pointing to the master distribution point". This is a slack cut above what the GPL itself demands, and is NOT allowed by the GPL.
So, as I said, but offering the sources only for those GPL programs CP modified, it is committing a technical GPL violation. It does not strike us as too serious a violation, because the freedom of the programs is not really jeopardized. We can still download the sources, as used by CP, from other places. Still, if someone chose to stand up and revoke CP's license, such a thing would be something to hang on (assuming this practice has not changed during the ~3 years since I last checked this). This matter plagues small Linux distros much more. They often only put up the source code for modified software. There was a Slashdot story, about half a year ago, saying how essentially all small Linux distros are violating the GPL due to this article. > As everyone knows, Well, as most everyone agree would be a better description of the current state of affairs. > If one modifies a single work and complies with the licensing terms for > that single work by distributing the source code for that work from > one's own FTP server, where all other works' licensing terms are > satisfied by having the (unmodified) source available elsewhere, I don't > see any problem with that. > Because the other works license is NOT satisfied by having the sources available elsewhere. That is precisely the problem. You must supply the sources for everything you distribute in binary form, whether modified or not. Personally, I would have preferred to read this as "you are responsible for...", which means that you must keep a copy around, but are not required to actually distribute it unless upstream stopped doing so. This is just wishful thinking, however, and I'm not sure I can show it has any holding in the actual text of the license. Another interesting defense would be to say "we'll mail any source to anyone asking for it, no one asked so far". I can, actually, imagine this defense standing up in court. In essence, it amounts to the same thing as my previous paragraph. In short, this is a fairly side issue, mostly because the people who use and who typically enforce the GPL care mostly about freedom, and freedom is not hurt by this apparent violation. Let's just hope it remains that way. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. Have you backed up today's work? http://www.lingnu.com/backup.html ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
