7/9 here without looking

Post #40,299 by ben_tilly 5/29/02 10:08:04 AM Reply	7/9 here without looking Did they change the quiz? You quote there as being 8 questions. I was fairly wrong about the LGPL. But I am irritated about the GPL question they missed. I think that their interpretation of section 3b of the GPL reflects neither common usage nor intent. OK, the wording of ...on a medium customarily used for software interchange... suggests a physical item with code on that, but s/on/in/ and you get the common understanding - the Internet is widely used for software interchange, and this is the first time that I have heard anyone claim that posting code on the web isn't enough. If their interpretation is true (and looking at the source, they probably had good advice), then that is something that I hope gets fixed in the next version of the GPL. :-( Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #40,317 by drewk 5/29/02 12:11:07 PM Reply	That's what I thought, too OK, the wording of ...on a medium customarily used for software interchange... suggests a physical item with code on that, but s/on/in/ and you get the common understanding - the Internet is widely used for software interchange, and this is the first time that I have heard anyone claim that posting code on the web isn't enough. <ObAOL>Me Too!</ObAOL> BTW I had two wrong. Mostly I guessed based on what I believed the intent of the license to be. The fact I got most of them right indicates to me that the wording is pretty good. Number 5 was a lawyer's dream. Totally impenetrable IMO. Number 6: I guess the actual requirement is that you either charge the cost of distribution or give source free to anyone who buys the binary? === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #40,321 by ben_tilly 5/29/02 12:25:07 PM Reply	The specification is section 3 of the GPL And reading the license closer, the restriction seems to be intentional. The last paragraph of section 3 provides that if the distribution mechanism is access to copy from a designated place, then making source code available in the same way counts as distributing it, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source. In other words if you put your executable on a website and the code along with it, that is OK. But if you ship someone a CD, then you have to be willing to ship them sourcecode as well. (Don't ask me why.) Cheers, Ben "... I couldn't see how anyone could be educated by this self-propagating system in which people pass exams, teach others to pass exams, but nobody knows anything." --Richard Feynman
Post #40,322 by drewk 5/29/02 12:42:48 PM Reply	"Sorry, we're slashdotted" Sell the binary on CD, then put up a website behind a dialup, run off a Palm Pilot with Apache on it. Tell people they can dowload the 2 gigs of source there. Seems reasonable that the source should be at least as accessible as the binary, and in the same manner. I wonder if anyone actually tried this, or if the clause is anticipating a hypothetical? Imagine the brainstorming sessions to figure out ways to cheat the GPL. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #40,495 by Gibbo 5/30/02 8:58:18 AM 5/30/02 9:00:44 AM Reply	Of course I can't count. I did a degree in Pure Mathematics Edited by Gibbo May 30, 2002, 09:00:44 AM EDT Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!