RE: Dell vs. GPL

["David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>]

> I'm still not seeing any evidence of anyone being blocked from obtaining
> the source code (although I haven't followed the whole thread)

> I repeat, did anyone ask dell for source code for this supposed violation?
> They are not bound to _distribute_ the source code with their software
> only to make it available in a reasonable fashion upon request.

> Or am I missing something here ?

	Where in the GPL does it say what you are claiming it says? My copy of the
GPL says:

  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form with such
    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

	Now, since we're talking about commercial distribution, 'c' doesn't apply.
Since you can't accompany a web download with a written offer, 'b' doesn't
apply. That leaves only option 'a'. Perhaps your understanding of the word
'accompany' is different from mine, but as I understand it, if something is
accompanied by something else, they travel together.

	DS