GPL Violation is normal ?
alceste.scalas at gmx.net
Mon Nov 4 22:22:37 UTC 2002
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 10:45:05AM +0100, Andreas Schockenhoff wrote:
> have you ever make a online "binary only update" for a friend
> or in your job? I think than you make the same GPL violation
> as you give a binary only CD away?
The GNU GPL says:
| 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based
| on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form
| under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you
| also do one of the following:
| c) Accompany it with the information you received as to
| the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This
| alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution
| and only if you received the program in object code or
| executable form with such an offer, in accord with
| Subsection b above.)
So, if a friend of yours downloads a copy of a GNU/Linux
distribution and makes you a present of it, saying that you can
download the sources from the distro website, then it should be
fine: it is a non-commercial distribution.
But, for example, the magazines that are sold together with Free
Software CD-ROMs are violating the GNU GPL: they're performing a
commercial distribution, and should offer the source code themselves
without pointing to someone else's website.
This .signature is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
any later version. ___________________________________
______________________________________) PGP information in e-mail header |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Discussion