Hi all,
I'm looking for ways to comply with the GPL without the 3-year
requirement (I don't know where I'll be in 3 years).
Suppose I have an online store that sells CDs of GPL software. People
buy the CD and we ship it to them. One obvious way to comply with the
GPL is to always send a
Michael Poole wrote:
Section 3 of the GPL does not seem to permit that:
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of
But you know? This also affects selling CDs at a conference.
If you are at a confernece giving out CDs, you are not offering access
to copy. So giving them the option to burn a source CD for them
wouldn't count. Correct?
Daniel.
Michael Poole wrote:
Section 3 of the GPL does not seem to
Michael Poole wrote:
I would distinguish that case by the cost. If your web site has a
checkbox that the user can check to receive the source CD at no
additional cost, then I think your situation would be the same as the
situation at a conference.
At the conference I would be giving the
Michael Poole wrote:
The GPL only explicitly permits this for the three-year written offer
case. Perhaps suggest that GPLv3 allow it?
The three year offer is precisely what I'm trying to avoid. I don't know
where I'll be in three years, and I don't want to worry about being able
to provide
Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
How about having the source code on a PC ready, and if anyone asks, I
charge for the media and burn the CDs? So I just have to bring some
CDRs and I know they won't go to waste.
Sure, that should be ok.
My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
Daniel Carrera wrote:
My friends and I decided we'll do that. We'll have a couple of laptops
with the sources, and a sign next to the CDs that says If you want the
sources for this CD, ask us, and we'll burn you a CD for $2.
I would be interested to hear afterwards
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
That's because your suggested process is not what I suggest to Carrera.
Yeah, I know that it's close to impossible for a GNUtian to grok first sale.
By your logic... I stole something once, I didn't get caught, therefore
theft is not illegal.
Cheers,
Daniel.
--
Hello all,
Say I want to put OpenOffice.org on a CD and distribute it. According to
the L/GPL I have to include the source code or promise to have the
source code available for three years (section 3).
The problem is that the source code for OOo is a few gigabytes. :( It's
not practical to
Michael Poole wrote:
As GPL section 3(c) indicates, you may use that option if you were
given a written offer to provide source *and* your distribution is
noncommercial. You have given no hint whether your distribution
could be considered commercial, and the GPL is unfortunately vague
as to
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
It's easy. Modify or not. Let a friend of yours burn a CD. Acquire it from
him without any I agree manifestations of [L]GPL acceptance, and
redistribute it (i.e. that acquired CD) under any restrictive contractual
TC you want (nothing but forbearance, for example).
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Right. But it's not required. You can gift or sell it without TC.
The rest is here:
http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm
That looks doggy to me... I think I'll pass. Thanks anyways.
Cheers,
Daniel.
--
/\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/
Don Armstrong wrote:
What you can always do is have the source CDs available there, and
give them to anyone who requests them who also donates a dollar for
the openoffice cd. [Or some other method of satisfying equivalent
access.]
That's generally what we do at the Debian booth.
Now many CDs
Andrew Suffield wrote:
You aren't required to give copies of the source to
everybody. However, if somebody gives you a Knoppix CD, and you ask
for the source, and they *refuse* (and don't exercise any of the other
options either), then they would be breaking the law.
This is also the easiest
Hello,
A few months ago I asked for opinions on the Public Documentation
License (http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/PDL.html) and I got two
interesting responses:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00236.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/03/msg00260.html
In addition
?
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
?
Well, then it means you gave people more freedoms than you intended. You can
still make a GPLv2 fork and make all subsequent releases GPLv2 only.
The point is, the or later gives you more flexibility and choice. I think
it's a prudent precaution.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
I'm interested in why you think it's not.
Wow, hey. I was just asking a question. I didn't know there was an issue here.
I certainly haven't thought about it half as much as you have.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today
.
That means that your GPLv2 or later work is now dual licensed:
GPLv2/proprietary
But that is still free. It's like MySQL for example (GPL/proprietary).
As long as the GPLv2 is an option, the work is free.
Or am I just confused?
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join
. After all, this isn't Debian
documentation we're talking about. But I will still go for the CC-BY
because I think it is a step in the right direction.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org
a clarification letter works.
:-(
Best,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
slightly from the text of the
notices in the files of the Original Documentation. You should use the
text of this Appendix rather than the text found in the Original
Documentation for Your Modifications.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want
away from the PDL in
the first place.
The GPL doesn't seem to have any such requirement. So, how would I name
the authors? Can I get away with an appendix with a list of contributors?
4) Is there anything I should be aware of that I forgot to ask? :-)
Thank you for your help.
Cheers,
--
Daniel
the
sources from the website under the GPL/CC-BY.
Yes?
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
-BY,
while making it easy for other people to meet the requirements also.
They'd only have one file to distribute to maintain attribution.
What do you guys think?
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org
thoughts ?
Thanks for the help.
As a sidenote, I got a response back from our chief editor and she likes
the idea of a dual GPL/CC-BY license. I think that the others will too.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http
is
not to pick something infallible, but to pick something suitable.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), or under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License, version 2.0 or later
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), at the option of
any part receiving it.
How does that look?
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect
Don Armstrong wrote:
s/part/party/ [possibly consider just using 'at your option' or
whatever the precise language is from the GNU GPL recommended
copyright statement.]
Okay. I made it at your option. I like simple language.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join
,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
like a simple and expedient solution.
How would you feel about that?
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
Daniel Carrera wrote:
In any event, would you (Debian-legal) help me draft a short and simple
letter that would clarify away the problems?
How's this? :
LICENSE CLARIFICATION
This is how we, at OOoAuthors, interpret the Creative Commons
Attribution license, used for our work
it.
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
Cheers,
--
Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org |
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
35 matches
Mail list logo
