Hi!
> [Christopher Friesen]
> > I think you should re-read the GPL. You only have to provide source
> > to people to whome you have distributed your new binaries, and you
> > only have to provide that source if you are asked for it.
>
> Oh, and you have to provide the complete text of the GPL as well, and
> for that you do *not* have a "only if they ask for it" clause.
>
> Or so it seems to some people, like RMS. See this week's DWN: there is
> a nice long discussion in debian-devel about this. Apparently RMS
> demands that all GPL'd Debian binary packages include a copy -- it is
> not enough that the Debian base system already has a copy and that all
> GPL'd source tarballs include a copy.
>
> I do not agree with this interpretation, because it would mean that any
> GPL'd file that can possibly be independently downloaded (such as a .c
> file from a CVS server) must include that same 17k document.
>
> ...But just so everyone knows: according to RMS, every file on your FTP
> server that you provide under the GPL v2 must include a copy of the
> GPL. (Easy enough to do with tar files, harder for other formats, and
> never mind the wasted bandwidth.) Having the GPL in a separate file on
> your site does not count, apparently.
Hmm, add special code for GPL into gzip ;-).
Pavel
PS: That's crazy. Including it by reference should be enough. I do not
want waste 17K on every file.
-- I'm pavel@ucw.cz. "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care." Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at discuss@linmodems.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 07 2000 - 21:00:10 EST