Picking a license

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Fri, 14 May 2010 19:17:20 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote:

> On May 14, 9:04 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l... at geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message <548024fc-
>> dd56-48b9-907d-3aa6a722b... at l31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Patrick
>> Maupin wrote:
>>
>> > The confusion that some are showing in this thread about whether
>> > source must be distributed certainly helps to show that as well.
>>
>> What “confusion”? The GPL requires that source must always be offered
>> in some form. Simple as that.
> 
> Right, but when I explained that that requirement also applies to Joe,
> who downloaded an ISO from Ubuntu and burned a CD and gave it away, no
> less than 3 people jumped in to "correct" me.

The confusion is over what form that offer may be, and what counts as 
distribution.

Your claim seems plausible, but whether it is correct or not is not so 
obvious. I would say that, given the lack of any lawsuits against 
individuals and Linux User Groups, the *intention* of the GPL is to allow 
individuals to act as a proxy between the end-user and the actual 
distributor (in this case, Ubuntu) without taking on the obligation to 
provide source code.

Looking at the FAQs, my comments in square brackets:

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

    If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with 
    source code [e.g. as Canonical does with Ubuntu], the GPL says
    you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code 
    later. [This is available on their website.] When users non-
    commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, 
    [e.g. I download the Ubuntu install DVD and make a copy for
    my friend] they must pass along a copy of this written offer. 
    [I am obliged to tell my friend they can get the Ubuntu written
    offer from Ubuntu's website, and pass it on directly if asked]
    This means that people who did not get the binaries directly 
    from you can still receive copies of the source code, along 
    with the written offer.

    The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party 
    is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way
    can order the source code from you. [In other words, if I give
    Fred a copy of Ubuntu, it is Canonical and not me who is responsible
    for providing the source code to Fred if he asks for it.]


Okay, it's not the licence itself, but the FAQ pretty much makes the 
intention clear. Merely handing over an Ubuntu DVD to a friend is not a 
violation of the GPL.



-- 
Steven