[PLUG] some clarifications on GPL

Nishit Dave stargazer.dave at gmail.com
Wed Jan 10 10:18:25 PST 2007


On 1/9/07, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> The clauses regarding availability of source when a service is offered
> over the network is a *optional compatible clause*. So again GPLv3 makes
> absolutely no difference in this case by default. You are quoting a
> obsolete article. Read the *current draft* before cluebatting someone.
>

Just for the record, let's see what your *current draft* of GPLv3 says (from
http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-draft-2006-07-27.html - Ehh, see the date, doc?)
under Sec.6[3]:

"You may copy and convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable
Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
...
...
[b1) Convey the object code in a physical product (including a physical
distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least
three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer
support for that product model, to provide access to copy the Corresponding
Source from a network server at no charge.]"

...which is different from subsection 6[3]c.

Then, for perspective, see the same section, and the footnote no.51 on
http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale [pdf], which gives the rationale behind the
changes from the first draft, in the second draft.

What you are pointing at (inclusive of compatibility) is the realm of Sec.7,
specifically subsection b(4).  Additional Requirements, doc.

We could call this cluebat v2, but let's call it a discussion draft.  And
settle this verbal jousting.

Please, go figure.


More information about the plug-mail mailing list