Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3

[Alexandre Oliva <oliva@lsd.ic.unicamp.br>]

On Jun 26, 2007, "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:

> Alexandre Oliva:

>> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com> wrote:

>> > I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to
>> > mean: not directly; i.e.  they could give you a third-party
>> > download link.

>> This has never been enough to comply with GPLv2.

> A lot of people seem to say this, but I don't think it's true.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCUnchangedJustBinary and
the 3 questions after that should be enlightening as to why people say
this ;-)

    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
            ^^^^^^^^^^

Why would 'physically' be there if it didn't mean anything?  When
interpreting legal texts, that's one sort of question you should ask
yourself.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member         http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/