Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759351AbXFZWqU (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:46:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754906AbXFZWqM (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:46:12 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.169]:2872 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752681AbXFZWqL (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:46:11 -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 15:45:28 -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) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Tue, 26 Jun 2007 15:45:46 -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 15:45:48 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2404 Lines: 52 david@lang.hm wrote: > this sounds like a step backwards, you may not have the sources at that > point if you were relying on the other site to host them. You would then be violating the GPL, under any version. The GPL is quite clear that being unable to comply with it means you do not get the benefits it offers rather than excusing you from meeting its requirements. You *MUST* have the source code in order to distribute it on request. You cannot ship GPL'd works without offering source code just by arranging it (deliberately or accidentally) so that you don't have the source code. > and by the way, internet access never was a barrier that could stop > someone from obtaining them, the only issue was you hosting the source vs > someone else hosting the source. The GPLv2 never specified one way or the other. If you do allow someone else to host them, you are responsible for making sure they remain available for at least three years from the last time you used them as an offer. Should they stop distributing, you would be violating the GPL. Nothing in the GPL says you can't rely on third parties for your GPL compliance. Of course, this could be a very risky thing to do. However, there is no GPL violation so long as they do in fact remain operational for three years from the last time you distributed. In fact, a third party is no more risky than any other setup. Any company can go out of business within the three-year period after distribution. There are many real-world cases where a third party having the source is actually more likely to result in actual GPL compliance than the distributor. (Consider a fly-by-night company selling Fedora binary distributions burnt to CDROM on the stop for $1 on a street corner.) One way to avoid this problem is to maintain your own web page that links to the third party's download. You would have to host the sources yourself if you couldn't make other arrangements at any point during the three year period. This is no different from any other case where the offer is not honored. If the offer is not honored in a case where the GPL requires that it be, the GPL is being violated. 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/