GPL compliance

[Scott Kitterman]

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 16:35:30 +0200 Alexander Skwar 
<listen at alexander.skwar.name> wrote:
>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
>with "convenience".
>
>>  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
>> not.
>
>Of course.
>
>> On-line distribution of source is sufficient.
>
>I don't think so.
>
Which is why it's printed on the CD how to get the source.  You are correct 
that online access is not sufficient, but Canonical is doing exactly what 
the GPL requires, so there is no need to continue your dark hints and 
innuendo about the magic in the GPL.

Scott K