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

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

Posted Dec 12, 2008 19:06 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)
In reply to: This is NOT a Linux vs. BSD (distribution) issue by MattPerry
Parent article: Free Software Foundation files suit against Cisco for GPL violations

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.

(Log in to post comments)

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.