Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Matthew Garrett wrote: >> So why is "You must give the source to the recipient of the binaries" >> not equally objectionable from this point of view? > >That is simply a restriction on the allowed forms of distribution (namely, >you may distribute source, or binaries plus source; you are not granted >permission to distribute binaries alone). Similarly, (under various >licenses), you may only distribute with ChangeLogs attached, only with >copyright notices, only with a copy of the license attached, only in the >form of an "original" plus "patches", etc. Distribution only on CD is also >such a restriction, but an unacceptable one.
You could look at it that way. On the other hand, if I release my GPLed code under 3(b) then anyone who receives it can pass on the offer I gave them (under 3(c)). I am then obliged to pass on my modifications directly to people who I never provided binaries to. Is distribution under 3(b) and 3(c) non-free? >All the acceptable restrictions I can think of are of this form. (Of >course, not all restrictions of this form are acceptable.) "Send it to a >third party" and "Pet a Cat" are restrictions which are not of this form. >This is Dictator Test-type stuff. "Agree to pass on source to anyone that the recipient passes the binaries on to" sounds like it's closer to that. >> debian-legal is the list on which some people offer their >> interpretations. It has no official standing or status. > >It is the list on which the interpretation is done, simply because it isn't >being done anywhere else! :-P Of course it's done elsewhere. The ftp masters and release manager do their own interpretation. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
