On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 07:40:11PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > > I read it, I just don't agree that it matters in this case. > > A more authoritive source disagrees with you.. RMS wrote the GPL > so I'll trust his opinion above yours.
Okay, well RMS can quote the specific licence section he believes we are violating. I had a quick review of it and nothing stood out for me: 4 -> 12 don't apply. 0 -> 2 don't apply. 3 talks about binary distribution obligations and says "If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code." Which is how distributors distrub Debian binary CDs. We need more than an "I believe". Anand -- Linux.Conf.Au -- http://linux.conf.au/ 17th - 20th January, -- Alan Cox, David Miller, Sydney, Australia -- Tridge, maddog and you?
