Looking at the GPL it has this statement: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) Now maybe my interpretation is bad but it states that you only have to do one of the following 3 clauses. Clause C does not require that the source be offered for 3 years and since Knoppix is a noncommercial distribution and the offer to distribute it was provided with the CD by listing a valid Internet location to download it, how exactly is it in violation of the GPL? Maybe it is a general misinterpretation that the source has to be available for 3 years, or your are referring to another version of the GPL (This one is GPL license available from http://opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php). Darryl -----Original Message----- From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 12:40 AM To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org Subject: Knoppix and GPL I believe that the Knoppix CD is violating the GPL by not distributing source code to GPL packages that they distribute. In particular, I looked at http://www.knopper.net/knoppix/index-en.html#license and found the following text: If not otherwise specified, the software on the CD falls under the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE. Similar to other Open Source licenses, this means that you can copy, modify, redistribute and even resell the CD without restrictions, as long as the recipient receives the same license. The source code of the standard packages on the CD are available from their respective original providers (for example on the FTP servers at Debian, RedHat, Mandrake). Special components such as the KNOPPIX kernel or the automatic hardware detection source code can be downloaded from http://www.knopper.net/download/knoppix/ if not already available in the /usr/src directory on the CD. Individual packages, as specified by the GPL, may fall under another license (for example Netscape). If in doubt, the licenses can be found in the help sections or the DEB-database (dpkg -p package-name) of each software package. I'm sort of annoyed by this because it's often very inconvenient to go around the net putting together all the source code necessary to reproduce some CD image . In addition, the GPL often make it true that I either declined source code or have source code whenever I have binaries. The only case where this is not true is when I am given a written offer to get source code, but that's fairly rare. That's convenient for me as a developer and user because it means I can figure out how things work or change them. I'm considering complaining about Knoppix not because I want to be excessively pendantic about legal issues, but because I have found the current practice makes it sufficiently inconevnient to figure out what their CD does in some cases that I will choose not to look at the source code. I believe that if the GPL were followed I would have had the source code I wanted conveniently available and would have easily figured out the questions I had. Questions for this list: 1) My interpretation of the GPL is correct, isn't it? I'm fairly certain on this one. 2) Am I being excessively unreasonable to complain to the authors about this GPL violation if it is actually getting in my way and making my life inconvenient? 3) Would anyone be willing to help with souch a complaint? In particular, I believe that someone who could point to convincing evdience that our interpretation of the GPL is correct would be useful. There may be a language issue and it is always nice to have something to say in response to "No you are just reading that legal document incorrectly." In addition, if it becomes necessary is there anyone around who has contributed to GPLed software included in Knoppix who would be willing to formally complain as a copyright holder if it comes to that? Thanks, --Sam
