On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 21:19, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2003, Bill Anderson <bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > That is why RH putting the SRPMS on the ftp site is beyond the call
> > required by the GPL.
...
> But since Red Hat includes the sources in the
> RHEL package, making the source code available for free download is
> definitely beyond the requirements of the GNU GPL.
Right. See, we do agree. :)
>
> > To put it plainly, if I modify a GPLed work, and give it to my wife, you
> > have no right to the modified source code or the program. Period.
>
> If you only give binaries to your wife, they must accompany the
> written offer (b). If your wife gives these binaries it to someone
> else, she must ask you for the sources and provide an offer of her own
> (b), or use your own offer (c) as long as she's not distributing it
> commercially. Then, this other person can do the same, and, if your
> written offer gets to me, I'm entitled to demand the sources from you,
> per (b).
Right, but since that offer *ONLY* accompanies the binaries, until it is
distributed to you, you have no right or entitlement to demand the
sources. That's what I've been saying. If you do not have the binaries
that RH distributes as RHEL, you have no right to the sources, thus they
do not have to put them on FTP for the world, regardless of whether or
not the binary distribution contains sources.
>
> When you don't want the obligation of to provide sources to any third
> party, you're probably better off with (a). This obviously doesn't
No, see above. "Any third party" is one that has received the binaries.
Period.
>From the FAQ:
"""
I just found out that a company has a copy of a GPL'ed program, and it
costs money to get it. Aren't they violating the GPL by not making it
available on the Internet?
No. The GPL does not require anyone to use the Internet for
distribution. It also does not require anyone in particular to
redistribute the program. And (outside of one special case),
even if someone does decide to redistribute the program
sometimes, **the GPL doesn't say he has to distribute a copy to
you in particular, or any other person in particular**.
What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to
distribute a copy to you if he wishes to. Once the copyright
holder does distribute a copy program to someone, that someone
can then redistribute the program to you, or to anyone else, as
he sees fit.
"""
(emphasis added)
Note the first paragraph. MY original and current assertion is that
only people who have received the binaries are entitled to the source.
If you look, you've partly said the same thing. :)
Again, the FAQ also addresses the clause you refer to, and says what
I've been saying; that only those who have the binaries have a right to
the sources under the GPL.
--
Bill Anderson
RHCE #807302597505773
bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
