Hi. Thank you for your opinion.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
James Mastros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 1999 at 05:44:26PM -0700, Sudhakar Chandrasekharan wrote:
> > Taketoshi Sano proclaimed:
> > > 1-a. Source distribution have all information in the original
> > > distribution.
> > > 1-b. Binary distribution have the complete corresponding
> > > machine-readable
> > > source code to build up the working version of the software.
> > Many users get Debian in a binary form (because it is cheaper). How could
> > such a user comply with 1-b when they buy a binary only CD? 1-c is too
> > complex for me to even understand.
> They don't comply with 1-b, they comply with 1-c, which is taken from the
> GPL almost exactly.
Yes.
1-c. Binary distribution have the written offer, valid for at least one
year, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to build up
the working version of the software.
This term is taken from GPL 3-b, with some modification.
(and 1-b is taken from GPL 3-a)
> > 1-b. Binary distribution have documentation on means of obtaining source
> > code to build a working version of the software.
> This isn't what he's looking for -- this could be a slip of paper that says:
> "For complete source code to build a working version of this software, send
> a check for $20,000 and a self-addressed stamped envelope to Ty Coon." It's
> DFSG free, but it won't guarantee that users can get source code, which is
> clearly the intent of the author. He might be better served by simply going
> GPL; he has most of the gist there already.
Maybe. But I think the new one is better than the old one, isn't it ?
--
Taketoshi Sano: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
