On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:39:08AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > Mentioning option 3 at all seems misleading, IMHO. No one burning CDs > > from our archive receives such an offer, so it should be made clear that > > even non-profits cannot exercise this option. > > Err... They have received the binary code *and* the source, but > decided to ignore the source. Debian distributes both source and > binary on their archive, for both individual packages and cd images.
Yes, so Debian is using 3(a), not 3(b). Therefore no-one who redistributes directly from our archive can use 3(c). (They key is that we provide only "current" sources, not sources from up to 3 years ago.) A second-stage distributor could use option 3 when redistributing something from a first-stage distributor, but is that really the audience of your text? Such a second stage is probably not going to be a "vendor", but someone giving a CD to a friend. -- Richard Braakman "I sense a disturbance in the force" "As though millions of voices cried out, and ran apt-get." (Anthony Towns about the Debian 3.0 release) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
