GPL Violation is normal ?

[Alceste Scalas]

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.

Regards,

alceste
-- 
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
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20021105/cf130bd0/attachment.sig>