Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
If that were the only way to distribute the code, then yes, that would be non-free. Fortunately, we have 3(a). Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
