Pristine source archive

[Dale E Martin]

> "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."

This says to me "if you put the binary on an ftp site, putting the source
there counts as a distribution" - i.e. you don't have to do MORE than that,
it's sufficient.  You don't have to mail people CDs on demand or something
else beyond simply having the source on the ftp site.

But it doesn't say I'm _compelled_ to do it that way.  Before that, in part
B of Section 3, it tells me what I am compelled to do - make a written
offer that you can get the source in some way compatible with Section 1 &
2, charging no more than the cost of the distribution itself.  How I
provide you with the source is simply stated as "on a medium customarily
used for software interchange".  Pointing the end user at a 3rd party URL
counts (in my opinion) as long as the source is really there.  I'd be
foolish to do it that way (and only that way) if there was some reasonable
chance that the third party URL was the only source, and that it would
disappear.

AND, if I'm actually distributing modified versions of anything, I do have
to supply my mods too.  This is a very important point!  For instance, my
reading says that if Lindows is based on Debian, then they could simply
distribute their own diffs and point at Debian's ftp site for the rest.  If
Debian shut off their ftp site, then they would be in violation of the GPL
until they found a new source of it.

The practical consequence of these terms means that I would be wise to keep
a copy of the source on my own site in case it disappears upstream.  Then I
could distribute the source myself if I could no longer point people at the
available 3rd party source.  The context of this discussion, however,
assumes a giant site whose purpose in life is to hold upstream source of
the Linux distribution universe.  If that was the case, perhaps relying on
this site would be OK, just for the sake of argument.

> No, you can't, at least according to my reading of the GPL.

Our interpretations differ then.  Since we both admit to not being lawyers,
it's time to drop this thread IMHO.
 
> You should still read and understand the license.  That does not require
> being AL.

I have read the GPL and LGPL several times, and reread the pertinent parts
of the GPL before sending my reply to you.  Just because our
interpretations differ on some of the fine points doesn't mean I have not
read it; please stop implying that I have not.

Take care,
     Dale
-- 
Dale E. Martin, Clifton Labs, Inc.
Senior Computer Engineer
dmartin at cliftonlabs.com
http://www.cliftonlabs.com
pgp key available