Merijn de Weerd wrote: > On 2006-06-28, Karen Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "I think, of the 500 distributions tracked by DistroWatch, probably 450 > > of them are in trouble right now per this position.", says Warren > > Woodford, founder of the Memphis Linux distro. > > How on earth is this news? This has been a requirement since 1991. > You either bundle source, or you include a written offer at the > cost of physical distribution. That's not hard.
I think the confusion about this was because this is a dirivative distro... And since they were distributing binaries that were unchanged from the parent distro, they thought they were covered by the fact that the parent distro offered source. In other words, they were only offering source for those binaries that they, in fact had changed. I think the requirement as stated by the FSF is actually a good one though, given the purpose of that license. Simply because the parent distro may change the source in such a way as that it no longer matches the binary you distribute or the parent distro may cease to exist for some reason. For the record, I'm not saying that I actually agree with the GPL - because in fact, I don't really believe that I do. -- Tom Shelton _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
