Some vendors (such as http://users.livejournal.com/joshua_/43185.html)
insist that since section 3(b) of GPLv2 does not contain an explicit
timeframe for source distribution, they can ignore requests for source
for up to 120 days. Clarify the introduction to the license to indicate
that this isn't what's meant.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <[email protected]>
---
COPYING | 6 ++++++
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/COPYING b/COPYING
index ca442d3..4cda18e 100644
--- a/COPYING
+++ b/COPYING
@@ -10,6 +10,12 @@
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
+ While this version of the GPL does not place an explicit timeframe
+ upon fulfilment of source distribution under section 3(b), it is the
+ consensus viewpoint of the Linux community that such distribution
+ take place as soon as is practical and certainly no more than 14 days
+ after a request is made.
+
Linus Torvalds
----------------------------------------
--
1.7.4
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 18:09:04 -0500
Matthew Garrett <[email protected]> wrote:
> Some vendors (such as http://users.livejournal.com/joshua_/43185.html)
> insist that since section 3(b) of GPLv2 does not contain an explicit
> timeframe for source distribution, they can ignore requests for source
> for up to 120 days. Clarify the introduction to the license to indicate
> that this isn't what's meant.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <[email protected]>
1. You've put it so it as if Linus said it
2. I'd like to see a lawyers take on it first (Linux Foundation perhaps)
before it goes in
Unless it's been past someone with legal knowledge you risk making the
problem worse not better even when doing apparently sane things.
You may also be weakening things if the legal view is that there being no
timescale means that the two should be going out together.
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 10:18:40AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 18:09:04 -0500
> Matthew Garrett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Some vendors (such as http://users.livejournal.com/joshua_/43185.html)
> > insist that since section 3(b) of GPLv2 does not contain an explicit
> > timeframe for source distribution, they can ignore requests for source
> > for up to 120 days. Clarify the introduction to the license to indicate
> > that this isn't what's meant.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Garrett <[email protected]>
>
> 1. You've put it so it as if Linus said it
If he merged it, he effectively would be saying it...
> 2. I'd like to see a lawyers take on it first (Linux Foundation perhaps)
> before it goes in
And yes, I'd expect legal feedback to be a requirement.
--
Matthew Garrett | [email protected]