Picking a license

[Paul Boddie]

On 14 Mai, 17:37, Patrick Maupin <pmau... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Before, you were busy pointing me at the GPL FAQ as authoritative.

No, the licence is the authority, although the FAQ would probably be
useful to clarify the licence author's intent in a litigation
environment.

[Fast-forward through the usual tirade, this time featuring words like
"bible", "moral", "evil"...]

> Well, I thought I was before, but then the discussion about
> downloading an ISO and burning it and giving it to a friend came up.
> This may be technically allowable under the license, but nothing you
> or anybody else has written has yet proved that to me.

Section 3 of GPLv2 (and section 6(d) of GPLv3 reads similarly): "If
distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access
to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to
copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the
source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the
source along with the object code."

And here's that FAQ entry which clarifies the intent:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet

Like I said, if you really have a problem with Ubuntu shipping CDs and
exposing others to copyright infringement litigation - or even
themselves, since they (and all major distributions) are actively
distributing binaries but not necessarily sources in the very same
download or on the very same disc - then maybe you should take it up
with them.

Paul