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: drew Roberts <zotz AT>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution Statement
  • Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 19:54:27 -0500

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]
> 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
right and I could have it wrong. I remember a discussion fairly recently
perhaps on, 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,

(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
861,535,038 words and counting.

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page