On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Rahul Sinha wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, James Sutherland wrote:
>
> > I'm not talking about Abit specifically, my point is that the GPL is
> > excessively restrictive. For example, it prevents me from distributing a
> > pre-built emergency repair disk; WTF does this achieve??
>
> this is not the case; so long as sources are available electronically or
> upon request (for free) you are complying with the GPL
Clause three gives three options:
1. I include the source with the binary.
2. I include a written offer to supply the source at cost at any time in
the next three years.
3. IF I received the program as a binary only package, accompanied by an
offer under paragraph 2, I can just include a reference to that offer, IF
I am distributing the code on a non-commercial basis.
Paragraph 3 does not apply. Paragraph 1 would mean the *I* had to
distribute copies of all the source I use. Paragraph 2 would be an
unacceptable burden (OK, no-one is going to take me up on the offer, I
hope - still, it's not an offer I want to make.)
I can't see what's wrong with distributing a compiled kernel alone,
provided the source is actually available freely; that's not what the GPL
says, though.
James.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:29 EST