Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Thursday 30 November 2006 03:29 pm, Francesco Poli wrote:
> 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.
>
> [1]
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#HowCanIMakeSureEachDownloadGetsSou
>rce
>
>
> Hope this clarifies things (for drew Roberts, for Rob Myers, and for
> other interested people, as well)

Looking at the quote you provide fro mthe FAQ, it looks like you could have 
it 
right and I could have it wrong. I remember a discussion fairly recently 
perhaps on lwn.net, perhaps on one of the other sites I browse and, iirc, 
there was a big issue with a small distro running up on a problem that led me 
to believe that I was right and you were wrong on this, but perhaps I do not 
remember correctly, or perhaps everyone made the same mistake. When I get 
some time and rest, I will try and remember to run this down and get back on 
the matter.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
http://www.nanowrimo.org/index.php
861,535,038 words and counting.