>> I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only distribution
>> under section 3, do you still hold that position?
>
> GPL 3b and 3c deal with that quite nicely. Debian, for example,
> distributes its GPL'd software by offering the source on the same
> medium.
"If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering
more than 100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent
copy along with each Opaque copy," could indeed be read differently
than the GPL. I think the FSF was thinking "book in a book store" here,
not "FTP site" or "table at a Linux convention."
I hope the FSF (RMS cc'd) is willing to make a minor change to this
wording to make it clear that if you offer a machine-readable
Transparent copy, but your offer is declined, then that's fine.
I'm not sure what the scenario is, or what the perceived problem is.
