GPL Violation is normal ?
rubini at gnu.org
Fri Nov 8 14:37:46 UTC 2002
> | 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.
Not quite. Because if you download, you didn't receive "an offer
accoding to section b above". Rather, you chose not to download the
source as you were not interested in it. You can't give accompany
your copy with "information you received as to the offer to distribute
corresponding source code".
If someone makes available both source and binary on the net, he/she
can't be responsible for your copy after you willingly chose not to
download source (your will, not his/her fault:
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.
> 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 matches my feeling of the situation
More information about the Discussion