GPL compliance

[deanlinkous]

> If you offer a download of the binaies then you MUST offer a
download

> of source.





>The GPL doesn't say that. You are interpreting a bit.



Nope no interpreting needed. That is what part of the fuss about mepis
is over. In general, no pointing upstream and not just one or the
other. It has to be however you are supplying the binary. 



It has to do with the "accompany it" part of sections 3a of the GPL. A
download cannot accompany a mailed cd and a mailed cd cannot accompany
a download. Accompany means "go with" or "along side" and that is what
it must be. 



Also from the GPL - "If distribution of executable or object code is
made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering
equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code."



As stated it ALSO has to be equivalent access. So now it has to
"accompany" and be "equivalent". How would JUST a download when I
ordered a binary cd thru the mail be considered equivalent? And Vice
versa as well.



The GPL FAQ also goes into this - "I want to distribute binaries via
physical media without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code
by FTP instead of by mail order? You're supposed to provide the source
code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are
welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by
FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source
is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL. 



When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source
to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from
you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not every user can do
such a download. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the
source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to
them by post.



...



If you distribute binaries via FTP, you should distribute source via
FTP."



And this part of another question in the GPL FAQ spells it out also -
If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent
access" to download the source--







> You can charge for that download up to the cost of the

> binaries.



>The GPL doesn't say that, and indeed, this is not true. For example,
you

>can give the binaries for free and charge $1 for the sources. What
the

>GPL says is that you can charge up to the cost of physically
performing

>the cost distribution (so, if it's a CD, a $2 is fair).





The GPL and the FAQ clearly states this exactly.



Section B states what you can charge if you have opted for the written
offer and it is "for a charge no more than your cost of physically
performing source distribution"



So that covers ONLY the written offer section. So where do we look for
the other section? It goes back to equivalent access clause...

"If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access
to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of
the source code,"



If I charge $10 for my binary cd then equivalent access to my source
code would be $10. I cannot charge more since that would not be
equivalent access. 



The GPL FAQ also specifically deals with this - "Yes. You can charge
any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you
distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access"
to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not
be greater than the fee to download the binary."



Where is my mis-understanding? :-\"  :) I hope this is coorect format
for this thread.


-- 
deanlinkous