From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261937AbVGZQTk (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:19:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261962AbVGZQSH (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:18:07 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.168]:15116 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261881AbVGZQQQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:16:16 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Stephen Pollei" , "Lee Revell" Cc: , , Subject: RE: ZyXEL Kernel /BusyBox GPL violation? Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 09:15:31 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 Importance: Normal X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Tue, 26 Jul 2005 09:13:47 -0700 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Tue, 26 Jul 2005 09:13:53 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > Also if they didn't modify the kernel, they don't have to give you > > source, they can just refer you to kernel.org. > > Wrong..... > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeWithS > ourceOnInternet > [[[I want to distribute binaries without accompanying sources. Can I > provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order? > You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a > physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people > a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the > mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to > satisfy section 3 of the GPL. > > When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the > source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the > source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not > every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as > entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be > prepared to send it to them by post. > > If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose > to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you > cannot assume that. > > Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in > the first place. ]]] I'm sorry, this makes no sense. What if a user can't conveniently get the source by mail? More users can more conveniently get the source by HTTP than can get it by mail. This argument may have made sense many years ago, but it doesn't now. The GPL does not say you have to mail it. The GPL says you have to provide it "on a medium customarily used for software interchange". That means *YOU* get to pick the medium, you just can't pick one that's so obscure that nobody could decode it. The web is just such a medium. DS