GPL compliance

[ubuntu at rio.vg]

Gary W. Swearingen wrote:
> 
> they're nasty licenses with magic statement clauses, then you should
> (?) worry about your magic statements for all.
> 

Out of curiosity, what are these "magic statement clauses" you keep
referring to?  You seem to attach an awful lot of significance to them
without defining them.

As to your general argument, it is based on a misconception that I've
seen before, and commonly used by those who despise the GPL.  You are
misunderstanding the difference between a copyright license and a
contract.  They are two separate areas of law.  GPL is a copyright
license, not a contract.  The issues of contract law do not apply.  It's
sort of the difference between a "One to One" transaction, which is a
contract, and "One to Many", which is a license.

The sources for Ubuntu are freely available online.  There is no
requirement under the GPL to offer source code in a certain form, beyond
"a medium customarily used for software interchange".  Downloading off
the net certainly qualifies.  There is no requirement that the
distribution be the most convenient form for the recipient; it need not
be on CD.  If the user wanting the source code doesn't have access to
the internet, that's his own problem.   Would anyone suggest that
Canonical would have to ship Ubuntu source on 3,000 floppy disks because
the person requesting the source didn't have a CD-ROM drive?  Of course
not.

On-line distribution of source is sufficient.