Klaus Knopper: >> Is nobody gettng tired of this topic? I thought we already cleared >> things up. The written offer is present on each CD, which complies >> to the GPL. I have an email from Dave Turner from the FSF stating >> that Knoppix IS in compliance with the GPL. Is there anything more >> to discuss?
Andrew Suffield: > This paragraph is highly confused. > > Firstly, "Knoppix" can't be "in compliance with the GPL". The GPL is a > license. It applies to people. You cannot sue a piece of software. It is > the people who distribute Knoppix who must comply with the GPL. ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Definitely. I read the above paragraph as "knoppix as distributed by me is in compliance", since Dave Turner wrote to Klaus Knopper. Not confused at all to me. > Secondly, a "written offer" in a CD image is a really weird notion. [...] If legally binding, it's as valid. I can't tell if it's legally binding but I assume it is, as Dave Turner is not a novice at all. > Lastly, this "written offer" does *NOT* exempt commercial distributers from > being required to either: > a) provide the source along with the binaries > b) provide a written offer *OF THEIR OWN*, valid for at least three years, > to provide source on demand Sure. But as you write above (and underlined by me), that is _their_ problem, not Klaus Knopper's. That said most magazines have this problem, at least in Italy. Still, not a problem for the developers or original packagers, as they comply with license terms -- it remains a problem for them as users, though. /alessandro