On Jun 26, 2007, "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva: >> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to >> > mean: not directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party >> > download link. >> This has never been enough to comply with GPLv2. > A lot of people seem to say this, but I don't think it's true. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCUnchangedJustBinary and the 3 questions after that should be enlightening as to why people say this ;-) cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete ^^^^^^^^^^ Why would 'physically' be there if it didn't mean anything? When interpreting legal texts, that's one sort of question you should ask yourself. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED], gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnu.org} - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
