From: Brian Candler <B.Candler@...>
Date: 2003-07-12T17:43:31+09:00
Subject: Re: OT: GPL - was Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 04:21:17PM +0900, Sean O'Dell wrote:
> I think I stand corrected ... I'm not sure.  Further down in paragraph 3 is
> this:
> 
> '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,
> even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with
> the object code.'

I think that means: "if you place the source code at the same place then
that is sufficient to fulfil your obligations under 3(a)" (the source has
been "distributed", even though the user didn't necessary take it)

> 'The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from the same
> place"; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you make arrangements
> with another site to keep the necessary source code available, and put a
> link or cross-reference to the source code next to the binaries, we think
> that qualifies as "from the same place".'
> 
> .... which I think is where I got my notion that when you distribute binaries
> for download, you have to provide source right along next to it.  But in
> looking close at the GPL, I can't figure out why the faq would make the
> above statement.

Looks like it's generalising the previous case: it's allowing that "from the
same place" can be interpreted as "elsewhere on the Internet but clearly
linked" (but note the "we think")

The way I read that, the "must" is bound to "from the same place" (i.e. if
you distribute binaries and source via FTP to meet 3(a), then the GPL says
you must offer access to copy the source code "from the same place")

So you're not forced to distribute the source, you can fall back to 3(b) or
3(c) if you wish.

Regards,

Brian.