Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Matthew Garrett 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 those were the only options, it was the loose consensus that that would >>not be free. > > Really? Wow. That's insane.
Merely internally consistent. A requirement that I can only distribute by offering to distribute to any third party is not Free. Practically speaking, imagine what happens when every microsoft employee separately requests a copy of GNU Emacs, on tape please. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
