On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 16:42, Michael Schwendt wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 03 Oct 2003 15:08:20 -0600, Bill Anderson wrote: > > > On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 14:24, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > On Oct 3, 2003, Michael Schwendt <ms-nospam-0306@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > You must make available the source code _only_ to the party which gets > > > > the binary portion. > > > > > > Unless you ship only the binaries, in which case they must accompany a > > > written offer to provide the sources to any third party. > > > > Cite please. > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid That is not in accordance with what was claimed. Note that the reference indicates parties who received a copy of the work. If I ship you a binary, and you give that binary to George, George has the rights because they go with the distribution. However, Joe, who does not have a copy, has no rights to the source. Period. Read it. Speciifcally the last sentence: "The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you." Note, again, that is is only for those with the binaries. Why? becuase the offer for source is transferred with the binaries. So, again, RH is only required to provide the source to those with binaries. Further, an offer for source is only one option. If you distribute source with the binaries *AS REDHAT DOES*, then there is no offer to be transferred, Indeed, at that point whomever distributed the binaries only is the responsible party for providing sources. The devil is in the details, folks. -- Bill Anderson RHCE #807302597505773 bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
