Re: Possible gpl problem?

[Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@verizon.net>]

On Monday 28 August 2006 07:11, David Woodhouse wrote:
>On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 00:22 -0700, David Rees wrote:
>> Just because a company doesn't have source freely downloadable on
>> their website does not mean they are violating the GPL even if they
>> are selling GPL licensed software. Only people who buy the GPL
>> licensed software are entitled to a copy of the source of the binaries
>> they receive.
>
>That's true _only_ if the company ships the source _with_ the binaries
>when people buy the product.
>
>There are two (commercial) options:
>
>1. If you _always_ distribute source _with_ the binaries, then you only
>have to give source to those who receive binaries. And of course you've
>already done so.
>
>2. If you ever distribute binaries _without_ source code, then you're
>obliged to make the source code available to _any_ third party on
>request; _not_ only those to whom you gave the binaries.

This (2) was my opinion also, and when you read the FAQ, it becomes 
apparent that as far as srcs are concerned, you are more of less expected 
to search the net and find the src for a rather lengthy list of binaries 
that are on the dvd.  This doesn't quite seem to fit my understanding that 
*they* should be supplying the src, they are not, or at least thats what I 
have read and interpreted the FAQ as saying.

To Harold W., this thread is re the former "k-linux" distro, which has been 
renamed and is now being sold for 299 euros on their website, with no 
functional download links.

This will be my last post on this since its off-topic for lkml.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.