Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.oz.au!ok
From: ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Questions about "Free Software Foundation" (long)
Message-ID: <2247@munnari.oz.au>
Date: 29 Sep 89 05:00:49 GMT
References: <6602@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> <110004@gore.com>
Sender: news@cs.mu.oz.au
Lines: 40

ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) wrote
: Have I given these diffs to anyone?  No way; I'm not going to get lumbered
: for the next three years with the obligation to send the FULL sources to
: ANYONE AT ALL who asks.  (That's what the CopyLeft demands, friends.)
In article <110004@gore.com>, jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore) replied:
: A pity you subjected yourself to so much trouble based on this false premise...
: You DO NOT have to distribute anything to "anyone at all who asks", only to
: those people to whom you distribute the corresponding binaries.

Go read the copyleft.  That's not what it says.  The copyleft says
    "You may copy and distribute the Program (or a portion or derivative
     of it ...) provided that you ...
     accompany it it with a written offer, valid for at least three
     years, to give ***ANY*** ***THIRD PARTY*** free ... a complete
     machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code ..."
It doesn't say "to give the people you distributed to in the first place
a complete copy" but to give ANY THIRD PARTY.  That may not be what the
FSF *intend*, but it is what they *demand*.  (You are allowed to pass on
the information as to where the original source may be obtained instead
of providing such a written offer, but ONLY if you didn't get the sources
yourself.)  Note further that Jacob Gore MUST be wrong about this, because
if I give someone just the binaries, they are allowed to discharge their
"source" obligations by telling everyone they pass the binaries on to,
to get sources from _me_.  It is clear that my "written offer" is supposed
to apply to those people as well as the people I distribute to directly.

No, if the Free Software Foundation were honestly interested in
encouraging software sharing, they would use a much simpler contract
with fewer restrictions.  There is that wonderful clause
	"By COPYING, distributing, or modifying the Program (or any work
	based on the Program) you indicate your acceptance of this licence
	to do so, and ALL its terms and conditions."
Now, picking up a copy by FTP to see what's there constitutes copying,
so this clause commits you to following every little detail BEFORE YOU HAVE
EVEN READ IT!  Nice one, FSF!

-- 
GNUs are more derived than other extant alcelaphines,| Richard A. O'Keefe
such as bonteboks, and show up later in the fossil   | visiting Melbourne
record than less highly derived species.  (Eldredge) | ok@munmurra.cs.mu.OZ.au