Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758178AbXFZWM4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:12:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757913AbXFZWMh (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:12:37 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.169]:1756 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757289AbXFZWMf (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:12:35 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" Subject: RE: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:12:08 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 In-Reply-To: X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:12:21 -0700 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:12:23 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2019 Lines: 55 > On Jun 26, 2007, "David Schwartz" wrote: > > > Alexandre Oliva: > > >> On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi wrote: > > >> > I read your scenario of the vendor not giving you the source to > >> > mean: not directly; i.e. they could give you a third-party > >> > download link. > > >> This has never been enough to comply with GPLv2. > > > A lot of people seem to say this, but I don't think it's true. > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCUnchangedJustBinary This consists of entirely unsupported statements. > and > the 3 questions after that should be enlightening as to why people say > this ;-) > > cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > Why would 'physically' be there if it didn't mean anything? It does. It means you can't charge for adminsitrative or other costs associated with performing the source distribution. It's necessary because otherwise someone could claim that it costs them $10,000 to give you the source code because they need to purchase a license from someone else. This limits what you can charge for but does not specify what you have to do. > When > interpreting legal texts, that's one sort of question you should ask > yourself. It's obvious why it's there. If you're going to charge for the distribution, the charge must be nominal and justified by actual distribution cost. Note that even a distribution over the Internet must be physically performed in this sense (actual physical activity by a human being is required to perform this type of distribution, both in setup and in maintenance). I would argue that the GPL allows you to charge these costs if you really wanted to, though it's hard to imagine why anyone would bother. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/