On 14 Mai, 17:37, Patrick Maupin <pmau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Before, you were busy pointing me at the GPL FAQ as authoritative.
No, the licence is the authority, although the FAQ would probably be useful to clarify the licence author's intent in a litigation environment. [Fast-forward through the usual tirade, this time featuring words like "bible", "moral", "evil"...] > Well, I thought I was before, but then the discussion about > downloading an ISO and burning it and giving it to a friend came up. > This may be technically allowable under the license, but nothing you > or anybody else has written has yet proved that to me. Section 3 of GPLv2 (and section 6(d) of GPLv3 reads similarly): "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." And here's that FAQ entry which clarifies the intent: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet Like I said, if you really have a problem with Ubuntu shipping CDs and exposing others to copyright infringement litigation - or even themselves, since they (and all major distributions) are actively distributing binaries but not necessarily sources in the very same download or on the very same disc - then maybe you should take it up with them. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
