Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 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). > > In the absence of 3(a), the GPL would be non-free? Has this been > discussed here before?
It's been discussed before. The loose and weak consensus was that in the absence of 3(a), the GPL would not have a clear way to freely distribute modifications. The consensus was loose and weak because nobody seemed particularly interested in the topic -- it's such a weird hypothetical that it's not very high priority. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
