In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
<erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Tue, 1 Aug 2006 03:41:28 -0500
<ecn4nf8keffi$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 08:25:02 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> MEPIS grundgingly complies with the GPL
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| MEPIS LLC, the popular Ubuntu-based Linux distributor, has finally released
>>| its distribution source code under the GPL. Warren Woodford, the
>>| Morgantown, WV-based company's CEO, is not one bit pleased with being
>>| forced to do so.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9113053102.html
>
> This case sets a dangerous precedent, IMO. Where does one draw the line?
> If I download a copy of Debian or SUSE, burn it to a CD, and then give it
> to a friend, am I now legally required to supply source code even though
> they can get it from the original source?
You are required to do so under section 3a of the GPL(v2).
Even if you do not pursue this particular option (this
is a "one of the above"), you must at least provide a
link of some sort; 3b has a 3-year offer window, and 3c
an apparently transferable offer, for the information you
are transferring.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#GPL
>
> Woodford had no problems supplying the source code to his modified
> packages, but he didn't think he should have to distribute the entire
> source when it was available upstream.
If he did not actually distribute the source, he needs to
have a link to it, at least.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
|
|
