On May 14, 1:38 pm, Paul Boddie <p...@boddie.org.uk> wrote: > On 14 Mai, 19:15, Patrick Maupin <pmau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 14, 11:48 am, Paul Boddie <p...@boddie.org.uk> wrote: > > > 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 > > [...] > > >http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary > > We're all aware of the obligation to provide source code. You've spent > the last few days complaining about it. > > > > Like I said, if you really have a problem with Ubuntu shipping CDs and > > > exposing others to copyright infringement litigation. > > > So, deliberately or not, you're trying to change the discussion > > again. I *never* discussed Ubuntu shipping a physical CD, and never > > intimated that that was a problem. My discussion was *always* about > > an individual *downloading* an ISO and *burning* a CD himself, then > > *distributing* the CD to someone else. > > I am not changing the discussion at all. You are describing a > situation where someone gets the binaries but not the sources, but > according to the licence they should get both of those things > (ignoring written offers and the like), and this does apply to Ubuntu > since precisely this act of distribution (to use the older term) is > performed by them. That you then pass on the binaries without the > sources is an equivalent situation, ignoring for the moment that you > do not yourself have the sources either.
If Joe downloads and burns a CD for his friend, he may not have the sources and may not have any intention of getting them, and probably didn't provide a "written offer." What you're "ignoring for the moment" is my whole point, that unlike Ubuntu, Joe is now in violation of the GPL license, because he provided neither a written offer nor source on CD, nor his own download site. > So, what are you supposed to do when the recipient "calls" you on the > lack of sources? There is possibly no "calling". Since no source and no written offer was delivered, Joe's friend may not know about the issue. Even Joe himself just saw it was "free software" and didn't read the fine print, so he may not have a clue how to get the source. >(And, yes, clearly the FSF anticipates that not > everyone will request the sources because it is written in that very > excerpt I provide above.) Which Joe doesn't know about and didn't adhere to in any case. > If the recipient is strict about exact > compliance, you will have to provide the sources on CD to them. That could be a year later, and Joe, who doesn't really even know anything about source, is really going to have a hard time figuring out exactly which sources went into the CD he downloaded that long ago. > And > this makes sense: if they can only make use of the binaries if > provided on CD (and not, say, on an FTP site because they don't have > an Internet connection, for example), then they will need to receive > the sources in the same manner. To an extent it makes sense. That's why I explained that I thought it would be nice of Ubuntu to put a warning to Joe on their site explaining the consequences of helping his friend out. Of course, since the warning would only serve to decrease object downloads, and since Joe's friend doesn't really want the source anyway, there is no real point. That doesn't alter the fact that Joe is immediately in violation of the GPL once he delivers the CD to his friend without the written offer. > Of course, the recipient may only > demand certain sources, not wishing to avail themself of the sources > for all copyleft-licensed packages in the binary distribution. [ Stuff about ShipIt snipped because I was never discussing that.] > Really, if at this point you think I'm playing games with you. I don't know what to think about that. Even after I've explicitly said multiple times I'm not discussing when Ubuntu ships a CD, you still felt compelled to include a big paragraph about ShipIt. Is it to confuse? Or because have OCD? I don't really know. > then > you really need to stop taking score and formulate the exact problem > you have with the distribution of Ubuntu-style media, I explained it fully multiple times. > because I'm > starting to think that the only real problem here is the one you have > with people using copyleft-style licences for their works. Well, as I have tried to explain, there are tradeoffs with any license, including the GPL. With the GPL, you can easily adhere to the letter of the license by shipping source with object. But sometimes the source is so huge, people take shortcuts to get around that. The license allows this, via a requirement to provide source later, that could actually fall on people who really don't understand that that is required of them (perhaps not very often in practice, but certainly in theory). > Since we've > had to hear about that over several days, I don't think that > articulating that particular problem once again really brings anything > more to the discussion. Probably not, but you've still never addressed how easy it is for a complete neophyte to go to, e.g. the Ubuntu site, be told do a download, try it out, get excited, burn CDs for his friends, and then be in violation of the GPL. As I have said, I don't view this as a *practical* issue, but it is an example of how those in the GPL community turn a blind eye to innocent infringement, just like Microsoft. After all, the Ubuntu download page says "When the CD is ready, simply put it in your CD drive, restart your computer and follow the instructions that will appear on your screen. Don't forget that you can create more copies and pass the CD to as many people as you like." without mentioning *anything* about source code. Regards, Pat -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
