Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!boulder!gore!jacob
From: jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Re: Questions about "Free Software Foundation" (long)
Message-ID: <110006@gore.com>
Date: 29 Sep 89 17:11:57 GMT
References: <6602@thor.acc.stolaf.edu>
Reply-To: jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore)
Organization: Gore Enterprises
Lines: 62

/ comp.lang.c++ / ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) / Sep 28, 1989 /
> 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:
> : 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 ..."
>[...]
> 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.

You are right, but it doesn't imply your original concern (that you
personally will be tied up distributing sources for three years).  Here's
the paragraph that follows:

    ...or
    c) accompany it with the information you received as to where the
    corresponding source code may be obtained.  (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form alone.)

Only those who were given a binary-only distribution can "discharge their
'source' obligations" this way (and people doing commercial distribution
are obligated to obtain and provide the source in either case).  So all you
have to do is only make your distribution in source form.  And if you make
it to a few well-known redistribution points, such as well-known ftp sites,
it will get wide distribution with little cost to you (sigh, those
inter-continental phone calls...)

I agree, though, that reading option (b) (which you quoted) alone gives one
the wrong idea.

> No, if the Free Software Foundation were honestly interested in
> encouraging software sharing, they would use a much simpler contract
> with fewer restrictions.

Offer one.

> 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!

Yeah, that should probably be "By using or distributing any part of the
Program you indicate...".

Jacob
--
Jacob Gore		Jacob@Gore.Com			boulder!gore!jacob