Can we?

[David Woolley]

Mark Doliner wrote:

> Nope, 6 b) allows binary software to be distributed on a CD as long as
> it is accompanied by a written offer to either give people the source
> via CD or give people access to the source on a network server.

No. It doesn't allow the network server option.

> 
> I think this is open to interpretation.  The GPL only states that the
> source must be available through "equivalent copying facilities."  If
> they make their binary available via FTP and the source available via
> HTTP, that's good enough for me because I consider those two to be
> equivalent for this purpose.

I believe the intent is to ensure that the person who received the 
binary is equally capable of receiving the source.  The person may be 
behind a firewall that blocks one, but not the other.  The technology 
they are using may be old (not a network case, but, for example, 
offering executables on CD, but sources on Bluray might be used to 
prevent effective supply of the source to some classes of user).  Going 
the other way, the alternative technology might have become effectively 
obsolete for the normal user - they might even have the capability to 
use it, but simply not know how - given the questions asked on this 
list, that would be quite possible for Pidgin.

It used to say on "a medium customarily used for software distribution", 
but nowadays it would be easy to choose such a medium that would be 
effectively inaccessible to many people who might benefit from the 
source, even if 9 track, half inch, tape is no longer customearily used.

-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.