Re: "GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivative distros"

[David Kastrup]

"Tom Shelton" <tom@mtogden.com> writes:

> I think the confusion about this was because this is a dirivative
> distro...  And since they were distributing binaries that were
> unchanged from the parent distro, they thought they were covered by
> the fact that the parent distro offered source.  In other words,
> they were only offering source for those binaries that they, in fact
> had changed.
>
> I think the requirement as stated by the FSF is actually a good one
> though, given the purpose of that license.  Simply because the
> parent distro may change the source in such a way as that it no
> longer matches the binary you distribute or the parent distro may
> cease to exist for some reason.  For the record, I'm not saying that
> I actually agree with the GPL - because in fact, I don't really
> believe that I do.

The idea of the FSF is that you get access to the source together with
the binaries.  Having to engage on a treasure hunt through all
previous parties who might or might not have changed some part is not
going to cut it.  If there is any point in having the source code
available, it must be the duty of the immediate provider of your copy.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum