On 3 Jan 2003, Cliff Wells wrote: > So the question is whether providing source on their website (and > numerous mirrors) constitutes "medium customarily used for software > interchange". I'll agree that that's a question for the lawyers, and > I'll assume Redhat has already hired some who assure them that it is.
No, that is not the question. I believe you just followed the "straw man arguement" where you present something different as someone else's issue and then provide an arguement to the "straw man" which was substituded for the real issue. Out of curiousity, is there a R, D, elephant logo or donky logo commonly appears by your name when it's in print? Getting back to "the question"--during March 2002 to October 2002 where was a written offer of source code availablity for the GPL packages provided in binary only form with the Dell PowerEdge Web Server Software version 3.x Powered by Red Hat Linux (which contains packages that Red Hat acknowledges that Red Hat, not Dell, are the distributor of due to the contract terms between the two companies). Red Hat gave an inapprobate answer that they provide the source code on the website (which you seem interested in focusing on for some reason as if you consider it to be a legit responce). They failed to explain how the website can be considered a written offer provided at the time of distribution of the GPL binary packages. Regardless of if the web has become a common media for distribution of computer code, it has not become a written offer provided at the time of distribution of CD-ROM media. There is nothing in the GPL that treats providing source code on a website as an exception to providing a written offer at the time of distribution of GPL covered packages on CD-ROM media provided only in binary format. The distributor must provide the written notice in addition to providing the source code. Anotherwords, if your driving drunk, you can feel free to argue that you where driving under the speed limit, but that still does not explain how driving drunk is acceptable. So, if you want to debate if the speed limit was being followed then feel free to do so but that is a different issue. But for purposes of this thread lets get back to if leaving out both the source code and written notice for over 50% of 2002 is acceptable behavior from a self-proclaimed friend to Free Software and "Open Source." Is it meeting the intended marketing pitch to promote your company with an "Open Source Security Summit" knowing that your company still has failed to keep it's promise to "promptly" address the GPL requirements? -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
