On 14 Mai, 19:15, Patrick Maupin <pmau...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 14, 11:48 am, Paul Boddie <p...@boddie.org.uk> wrote: > > Section 3 of GPLv2 (and section 6(d) of GPLv3 reads similarly): "If > > distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access > > to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to > > copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the > > source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the > > source along with the object code." > > > And here's that FAQ entry which clarifies the intent: > > >http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet
[...] > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary We're all aware of the obligation to provide source code. You've spent the last few days complaining about it. > > Like I said, if you really have a problem with Ubuntu shipping CDs and > > exposing others to copyright infringement litigation. > > So, deliberately or not, you're trying to change the discussion > again. I *never* discussed Ubuntu shipping a physical CD, and never > intimated that that was a problem. My discussion was *always* about > an individual *downloading* an ISO and *burning* a CD himself, then > *distributing* the CD to someone else. I am not changing the discussion at all. You are describing a situation where someone gets the binaries but not the sources, but according to the licence they should get both of those things (ignoring written offers and the like), and this does apply to Ubuntu since precisely this act of distribution (to use the older term) is performed by them. That you then pass on the binaries without the sources is an equivalent situation, ignoring for the moment that you do not yourself have the sources either. So, what are you supposed to do when the recipient "calls" you on the lack of sources? (And, yes, clearly the FSF anticipates that not everyone will request the sources because it is written in that very excerpt I provide above.) If the recipient is strict about exact compliance, you will have to provide the sources on CD to them. And this makes sense: if they can only make use of the binaries if provided on CD (and not, say, on an FTP site because they don't have an Internet connection, for example), then they will need to receive the sources in the same manner. Of course, the recipient may only demand certain sources, not wishing to avail themself of the sources for all copyleft-licensed packages in the binary distribution. Now we return to the matter of getting the Ubuntu sources. If you ordered a CD from Ubuntu via their ShipIt service, it is at this point that you can demand a CD of corresponding sources. If they cannot provide one, then obviously it poses a problem for your compliance (and theirs, and you should see once again why Ubuntu's activities do matter), but naturally Ubuntu provide parallel binary and source repositories for all their packages. So, even if they were found not to be in compliance according to the strictest interpretation of the licence, it is technically possible for you to acquire the corresponding sources and make them available to the person who was given the CD. If you downloaded an ISO file, Ubuntu could (and do) obviously provide source packages from the same location: their Web site and various mirrors. Really, if at this point you think I'm playing games with you, then you really need to stop taking score and formulate the exact problem you have with the distribution of Ubuntu-style media, because I'm starting to think that the only real problem here is the one you have with people using copyleft-style licences for their works. Since we've had to hear about that over several days, I don't think that articulating that particular problem once again really brings anything more to the discussion. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list