listen at alexander.skwar.name
Fri Jun 30 14:35:30 UTC 2006
ubuntu at rio.vg wrote:
> Downloading off
> the net certainly qualifies.
No, it doesn't. It might be *WAY* to expensive.
> There is no requirement that the
> distribution be the most convenient form for the recipient; it need not
> be on CD.
I'm not so sure. And my disagreement doesn't have anything to do
> If the user wanting the source code doesn't have access to
> the internet, that's his own problem.
I disagree. If a user got Ubuntu (or any GPL software) on CD and
has no Internet, why should he be forced to buy something (Internet
access) just so that he can make use of his rights? That doesn't make
sense to me.
Now, if Ubuntu would NOT be shipped on CD, then I might agree
with you. But Ubuntu is officially available on CD.
> 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?
Yes - if Ubuntu binary is shipped on floppy, then the sources should
be shippable on floppy as well.
So, yes, I'd suggest that Canonical would have to ship Ubuntu source
on 3,000 floppy disks.
> Of course
> On-line distribution of source is sufficient.
I don't think so.
Professor: Those delightful birds with their chirp chirp chirp
and their tweet tweet splat.
More information about the ubuntu-users