On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 01:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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?
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. "The question remains" would have been the correct statement, since whether RH made the source available was already agreed upon (they do). My apologies for your ensuing confusion. > 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). When you download GPL'd software from a website, where is the "written offer?" Try looking in /usr/share/doc and then get back to me. AFAICT, every package installed by RH includes a pointer to the source. Not necessarily from RH, but available nonetheless. Further, RH does make the sources available on their website. So what you are wanting is a big bumper sticker for the google-impaired to be able to find sources? > 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. Er, the website isn't a written offer. It's the distribution point. The GPL requires them to make the source *available*, not provide it *with* the binaries. You seem to be making a big deal over whether the offer is made on paper or electronically. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. > 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. And if you think this is truly worth pursuing, please feel free to do so. I certainly don't and I doubt many others (including the people who actually wrote the software and are hence the injured parties) do either. > 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. And a README file doesn't count? Hm. Next time I download a Mozilla binary I'll demand that they fax me something so I can be sure a tree is killed to satisfy the lawyers and trolls. > 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? And it's back to decaffeinated for you <wink>. -- Cliff Wells, Software Engineer Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net) (503) 978-6726 x308 (800) 735-0555 x308
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
