Siward de Groot wrote: [...] >>The FSF diagrees. See below. > > They can disagree all they want, > but as long as they don't write it in the license, we are not bound by it. > Or do you know of any prior ruling or general consensus among lawyers > about this ?
So you think you'll convince a court that the word "medium" in this case (which was clearly written at a time when the obvious example would have been one of a variety of magnetic tape formats) can also be interpreted as meaning a random conglomeration of computers and network components, owned by an undefined cloud of individuals and corporations, both domestic and foreign? There's not that much in common between a length of tape and the Internet. On the other hand, the link between a length of tape an a DVD is apparent. [...] >>Debian does not distribute the images under clause B > > I wonder why you think that ; > Certainly Debian doesn't distribute it under clause A or C, > so is Debian violating the GPL ? Debian _always_ distributes under clause A as far as I'm aware, since we make the source simultaneously available on-line. Remember, Debian does not produce physical CDs or DVDs in it's own right (although we do generate the master images and publish them on-line, with accompanying source images) I cannot imagine a situation in which Debian or SPI would go for the "written offer" route of clause B, and we build everything from source, so clause C is ruled out. > No need to worry too much about it, though, > because here is another way to comply with the GPL : > Accompany the softwares with written offers to provide the sources, > and if someone wants to take you up on that offer, > ignore them. You have an interesting understanding of the word "comply". Not getting sued does not necessarily equate to abiding by the law. Cheers, Phil.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
