Picking a license

[Patrick Maupin]

On May 14, 7:24 pm, Terry Reedy <tjre... at udel.edu> wrote:
>
> "The option to provide an offer for source rather than direct source
> distribution is a special benefit to companies equipped to handle a
> fulfillment process. GPLv2 § 3(c) and GPLv3 § 6(c) avoid burdening
> noncommercial, occasional redistributors with fulfillment request
> obligations by allowing them to pass along the offer for source as they
> received it.

Paul Boddie already pointed out that document.  As I explained, that
document was written for the Ciscos of the world.  The FAQ, which was
written for you and me states very clearly "The general rule is, if
you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete
corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you
received a written offer for source code is quite limited." in answer
to the question "I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I
distribute copies, do I have to get the source and distribute that
too?"

As I have pointed out on at least 3 posts by now, this FAQ
interpretation derives directly from the actual license terms and
appears to reflect the terms correctly. If you actually *read* GPLv3 §
6(c), it *only* applies if you received the object code in accordance
with GPLv3 § 6(b).  But if you download an ISO from Ubuntu, that
happens under GPLv3 § 6(d), *not* GPLv3 § 6(b).

However, the distribution to your friend when you give him the CD that
you burned for him is under 6(b), so not only do you not have an
upstream to rely on, you are actually in violation of the license once
you give him the CD without your own written offer!  (At one level,
this makes sense -- if the 3 year window for source is to have any
teeth, then you can't give the poor guy a CD 2 years after you
downloaded it and expect Ubuntu to make good on the source 5 years
after you downloaded it.)

Now maybe there is some *other* way (besides the obvious ways I've
mentioned such as fair use and the fact that nobody's going to sue
because of the PR fallout from bothering some grandma for sharing a CD
that was advertised as "free") that this is not an issue, but nobody
on this thread has yet shown any credible evidence that the act of
just handing somebody a freshly burned Ubuntu CD with no written offer
is not a violation of the license.

As I have made clear, I do not view this as a direct practical
problem.  But I do view it as a huge problem that the license is so
complex that in a couple of days of conversing about it, several
people have asserted that there is no way my reading of the license is
correct, yet nobody has shown solid evidence that would back up an
alternate reading, and I also view it as the tip of the iceberg as far
as the issue of license compliance goes.

Regards,
Pat