Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution Statement

cc-licenses AT

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Francesco Poli <frx AT>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution Statement
  • Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:29:49 +0100

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:39:47 -0500 drew Roberts wrote:

> I don't think you have this right at all. If you ship binary and
> source together, however you do so so that the person you distribute
> to gets both, you are done. I don't think you are done if you make
> both available but only distribute the binary to the other party.

I instead think that I am done.
Please note that a good number of major GNU/Linux distros are precisely
doing this: they put binary and source packages side by side on their
online repositories and make no written offer at all. No one is forced
to get source packages (and most users don't).

Let's see how this is allowed by the GPL text.
Quoting from GPLv2, section 3.:

| 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
| under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
| Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
| a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
| source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
| 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
| interchange; or,
| 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.

Hence, if I make source available from the same place as the binary,
this counts as distributing source, even if I do not force anyone
to get both.

> Do you officially represent the FSF views on the matter in any
> official way when you state this? If not, would you care to put it to
> them for their clarification?

I am in *no* way affiliated with the FSF.
But the FSF seem to already confirm what I said on their official
GPL FAQ (see [1])

| Q: How can I make sure each user who downloads the binaries also gets
| the source?
| A: You don't have to make sure of this. As long as you make the
| source and binaries available so that the users can see what's
| available and take what they want, you have done what is required of
| you. It is up to the user whether to download the source.
| Our requirements for redistributors are intended to make sure the
| users can get the source code, not to force users to download the
| source code even if they don't want it.


Hope this clarifies things (for drew Roberts, for Rob Myers, and for
other interested people, as well)

But it is also tradition that times *must* and always
do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpXQwmBIb8Md.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page