From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 28 11:44:38 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4950106564A for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:44:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net (ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net [80.76.149.212]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B558FC0A for ; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:44:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from c83-255-48-78.bredband.comhem.se ([83.255.48.78]:58204 helo=falcon.midgard.homeip.net) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1NlhYm-0007bI-5Z for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:43:46 +0100 Received: (qmail 53762 invoked by uid 1001); 28 Feb 2010 12:43:42 +0100 Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:43:42 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson To: Matthew Seaman Message-ID: <20100228114342.GA53691@falcon.midgard.homeip.net> References: <2e8230611002261650oe500cb9qa9b52336e4e717bf@mail.gmail.com> <4B88D0BB.201@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20100228015627.GA5609@guilt.hydra> <4B8A4F29.4070106@infracaninophile.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B8A4F29.4070106@infracaninophile.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Originating-IP: 83.255.48.78 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1NlhYm-0007bI-5Z. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1NlhYm-0007bI-5Z 2cc89d5ff6e59444281d6a89c597a827 Cc: freebsd-questions Subject: Re: selling freebsd cd for profit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:44:38 -0000 On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:10:33AM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 28/02/2010 01:56:27, Chad Perrin wrote: > > Actually, once your project becomes a commercial enterprise, the GPL > > stops allowing reference to upstream sources to suit the requirements of > > code redistribution. If you sell GPLed software, you have to provide the > > sources yourself -- and, if you offer the *option* of access to the > > sources without actually ensuring that everybody gets a copy of the > > sources right away, you have to maintain sources for each distributed > > version for a number of years after the last such distribution. I'm not > > saying you *don't* have to maintain sources that long after the fact if > > you make sure everybody gets a copy right away; I haven't read the text > > of the GPL in detail in a while, and don't recall that specific detail. > > Hmmm... I think the concept of 'modification' is pretty important > here. If you're just redistributing software without modifying it, > you've fulfilled the intent of the GPL simply by giving a link to a > well-known download site. After all, what's the difference between > that, and your outsourcing a download facility to a service provider > like, say, SourceForge? The difference is that when you just give a link to a well-known site you have no guarantees that they will keep the source for that particular version of the software in question for as long as needed. Going by the strict letter of the GPL (v2) I don't see that merely providing a link to somebody else's site is sufficient. -- Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se