On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Ward William E DLDN wrote: > I want to correct at least one egregious error in this > list of correcting errors; it's a big one, though. > > > Again, bootleg would be the wrong term but if you mean that > > you can not > > violate the license then your wrong--all you need to do to > > violate the GPL > > when distributing is to only provide the binaries without offering > > availablity of the source code. Once you with-hold the > > source code, it is > > no longer Free Software in spirit since it is no longer > > modifiable in the > > preferred form (source code) for performing modification. > > Uh, not QUITE.... close, but not quite, and it's a big difference. > You DON'T have to offer the source RPMs of packages that you distribute > the binaries for AS LONG AS THEY ARE AVAILABLE from the original site, > i.e., if I make a distro, but include only the binary for apache, > I STILL don't have to make the source available for Apache FROM MY SITE > since it can be freely acquired from http://www.apache.org, for example. > I do need to tell you what version, and I need to give you any special > changes I may have made, plus the configuration files, etc. Now, if > I'm WRITING Apache, I would need to make the source available, but that's > a horse of a different color.
I'm sorry to confuse you. My statements where in regards to software licensed under the GPL, not the Apache Software License. The Apache Software License goes beyond the scope of what I intended to discuss. If you want more information about the Apache Software License see http://www.apache.org/LICENSE-1.1 While the Apache Software License does qualify as being a Free Software license, it does not contain the same protections that a Copyleft license does (such as the GPL) and it has additional requirements which make it incompatible with the GPL. > Also, no one says I can't CHARGE for the source; I just can restrict > you from giving it away afterwards. I never said the source needed to be provided for free--I said an offer of availablity of the source code needed to be provided. The GPL clearly says "for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution" This does clearly indicate that a charge is allowed for. > And no one says I have to give you the source electronically; I could > always publish the source in a book, and make you buy the book to get > the source. How exact did you arrive at that from "a complette machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code ... on a medium customarily used for software interchange"?? It seems to me that EVERY copyright holder which publishes under the GPL is saying that the offer for the source code must be electronically readable which I believe is far from being "no one." > I just have to make it available to you under reasonable terms. Now, I > haven't seen anyone actually DO that yet... but I do have a book called > Linux IP Stacks, which is 90% just the IP Networking Stacks for the > kernal, plus some commentary... What GPL works does "Linux IP Stacks Commentary: Guide to Gaining Insider's Knowledge on the IP Stacks of the Linux Code" redistribute in *BINARY* format? Just as the scope of my statements does no include the Apache Software License, they also do not apply to source code only redistribution. > Note, this little bit (the not requiring that >I< give you the source > for things that are available from others that are not my copyright) > means that Redhat (and most of the other mainline distros) go above > and beyond, by hosting it in one easy to find group, and paying the > bandwidth charges to get it; they don't have to do that, as some > of the smaller (more specialized) distros refuse to do; they only > have to give you source on what they changed to comply with the GPL. > In other words, Redhat pays out of pocket to give you something they > don't have to give you by the GPL, as they could say "Here's what > we used, go find it on the Internet". Are you and the smaller distros charging for access to the binaries? If a smaller distro is performing **non-profit** redistribution then they can pass along an existing offer for the source code from the party they recieved the source from. This "proxy" of a source code offer during non-profit redistribution is permitted under GPL Section 3c. During the first week of April, Red Hat required you pay at least $60 to get access to the binaries. This is known as **commerical** distribution of which GPL Section 3c is *NOT* an option. Rather, the RHN redistribution complied with the last paragraph of GPL Section 3 instead. If RHN did not provide anything that met any of the terms of GPL Section 3 then it would be in violation of the license. In short, the smaller distros are granted an additional exception for non-commerical redistribution. This exception does not apply to the RHN commerical redistribution and RH is not going above and beyond. Feel free to post any more of your confusion regarding the terms of the GPL and I'll try to respond to them as best I can. Or you can try reading the GPL itself at http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
