Re: debian-devel-digest Digest V100 #25
> > > I wouldn't
> > > consider myself an expert, but the source for the Free binaries does not
> > > seem to be there. I think this would be a violation of the GNU GPL.
> >
> > So long as they make the source available, its okay. If you've bought Corel
> > Linux and you ask Corel for the source for one of the pieces of Free
> > Software on the CD, they have to supply it to you.
> >
> More importantly though, they have to provide source to the binaries they
> have compiled. So if they made any changed to GPL software, they have to
> provide those changes.
True, but whether they are in violation of the GPL depends on how you
interpret "available". RMS interprets this as both electronically
available and avialable on CD basically at cost (since in many parts of
the world dowwnloading an ISO image is not feasible). Either one will
probably work in the eyes of the law, but TTBOMK it hasn't been tested.
I bet a lot of distributions screw up their source cd's in some way and
get out of sync, not to mention hardware vendors. Mistakes are o.k. if
you they are willing to work with you. The question is: Is Corel
willing to respond to requests for the code? Are they willing to
correct mistakes? Or do they define "available" as "easily available to
those with a law degree willing to crawl naked over broken glass whilst
our helpful tech support staff flails you with reeds". I would bet a
call or two would get you a CD. If you pointed out an omission, maybe
even a free one (in fact, that would be a great policy for all distro
vendors to adopt). They really have nothing to lose by being helpful.
--
OST - the open source telecom corporation
Rich Bodo | rsb@ostel.com | 650-964-4-OST
Reply to: