Amid all the shouting has anyone taken to effort to determine whether he
has _in any way_ infringed the licence?
You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and
you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.
So, contrary to what I thought earlier he is fully entitile to auction
sell or whatever and get what he can for this disk. Postage included!
d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place
(gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the
Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy
the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on
a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports
equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions
next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source.
Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain
obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to
satisfy these requirements.
So it would seem that providing a link to an official gimp download (a
third party in his context) would fulfill the source requirements.
Since most of the "free" world seems to believe in the presumption of
innocence , has anyone bought or seen what he is distributing to accuse
him of not complying with this or any other requirement of GPL?
I don't like the fact he is hiding the program names in his presentation
but I don't see anything in GPL that that is infringing.
He is distributing free software which would not seem to be contrary to
the wishes and intentions of the Gimp project. His customers seem pretty
happy with the deal except for the occasional idiot who does like some
have done here and start blasting him with neg. feedbacks without even
contacting him with a complaint.
So has ANYONE proof of infringement ?
Gimp-developer mailing list