On May 14, 7:24 pm, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > > "The option to provide an offer for source rather than direct source > distribution is a special benefit to companies equipped to handle a > fulfillment process. GPLv2 § 3(c) and GPLv3 § 6(c) avoid burdening > noncommercial, occasional redistributors with fulfillment request > obligations by allowing them to pass along the offer for source as they > received it.
Paul Boddie already pointed out that document. As I explained, that document was written for the Ciscos of the world. The FAQ, which was written for you and me states very clearly "The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited." in answer to the question "I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies, do I have to get the source and distribute that too?" As I have pointed out on at least 3 posts by now, this FAQ interpretation derives directly from the actual license terms and appears to reflect the terms correctly. If you actually *read* GPLv3 § 6(c), it *only* applies if you received the object code in accordance with GPLv3 § 6(b). But if you download an ISO from Ubuntu, that happens under GPLv3 § 6(d), *not* GPLv3 § 6(b). However, the distribution to your friend when you give him the CD that you burned for him is under 6(b), so not only do you not have an upstream to rely on, you are actually in violation of the license once you give him the CD without your own written offer! (At one level, this makes sense -- if the 3 year window for source is to have any teeth, then you can't give the poor guy a CD 2 years after you downloaded it and expect Ubuntu to make good on the source 5 years after you downloaded it.) Now maybe there is some *other* way (besides the obvious ways I've mentioned such as fair use and the fact that nobody's going to sue because of the PR fallout from bothering some grandma for sharing a CD that was advertised as "free") that this is not an issue, but nobody on this thread has yet shown any credible evidence that the act of just handing somebody a freshly burned Ubuntu CD with no written offer is not a violation of the license. As I have made clear, I do not view this as a direct practical problem. But I do view it as a huge problem that the license is so complex that in a couple of days of conversing about it, several people have asserted that there is no way my reading of the license is correct, yet nobody has shown solid evidence that would back up an alternate reading, and I also view it as the tip of the iceberg as far as the issue of license compliance goes. Regards, Pat -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
