On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 10:35:41AM -0500, Ben Slusky wrote: > It isn't the case here. (Tho' your question is interesting.) > > The case here appears to be: > > * Crossmeta offers "add-on" software as a free download from their web > site: <URL:http://www.crossmeta.com/downloads/crossmeta-add-1_0.zip>. > The zip file contains a text file gpl-license.txt, which says that the > add-ons are offered under the terms of the GPL. > > * User downloads this GPLed software and asks the developer to provide > source code. Developer replies that the source code will be provided > only to paying customers: > <URL:http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/message.jspa?messageID=12277#12277>. > > That's baad, m'kay? This is definitely not acceptable. A written offer must be valid to ANY 3RD PARTY. So it wouldn't even be enough to offer the source code to paying customers and those who downloaded the binary code, but actually it must be made available to anyone who asks for it. -- - Harald Welte <[email protected]> http://gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
Attachment:
pgpEbMtWa8mKL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: blatant GPL violation of ext2 and reiserfs filesystem drivers
- From: Jamie Lokier <[email protected]>
- Re: blatant GPL violation of ext2 and reiserfs filesystem drivers
- Prev by Date: Re: [OT] ALSA userspace API complexity
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Shrinks sizeof(files_struct) and better layout
- Previous by thread: kernel.org is down
- Next by thread: Re: blatant GPL violation of ext2 and reiserfs filesystem drivers
- Index(es):
 |