This is NOT a Linux vs. BSD (distribution) issue [LWN.net]

This is NOT a Linux vs. BSD (distribution) issue

Posted Dec 12, 2008 2:06 UTC (Fri) by MattPerry (guest, #46341)
In reply to: This is NOT a Linux vs. BSD (distribution) issue by sfeam
Parent article: Free Software Foundation files suit against Cisco for GPL violations

> Yeah, I know that there can be a violation of the GPL even for
> distributed copies of executables built from the baseline unmodified
> code. But I find it hard to work up much indignation over that, as
> compared to the case where a vendor is sitting on modifications to the
> original source.

I don't find it hard at all. If they didn't agree to the license, then they shouldn't use the code. If they used the code and distributed executable, they need to abide by the license.

(Log in to post comments)

This is NOT a Linux vs. BSD (distribution) issue

Posted Dec 12, 2008 19:06 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

I agree that you should abide by the license.

However, I also think the license is wrong to require that every redistributor of *unmodified* programs must redistribute the source. A link to a well-known, persistent source, identifying a specific version, should be sufficient.

This is NOT a Linux vs. BSD (distribution) issue

Posted Dec 13, 2008 13:54 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

But it is sufficient. According to GPLv2, 3.b:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program [...] provided that you also [...]: b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange

A link qualifies as "written offer", the internet is a customary medium, and any reasonable person would be satisfied with that.