Can we?

[David Woolley]

Mark Doliner wrote:
> 
> I feel like this part of the GPL is a little vague.  Relevant excerpt
> from GPLv3, section 6d:
> 
> You are allowed to distribute the binary provided you "offer
> equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through
> the same place at no further charge. ... If the place to copy the

That seems stronger than V2 for non-network access.  As they are 
providing it on CD, it seems to require that they provide the source on 
CD, free, which makes it even more important that they include it with 
the original CD.

> object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a
> different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports

This only applies to network access.

> equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions
> next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source.
> Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain
> obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to
> satisfy these requirements."

I don't know about Pidgin, but this can be tricky for some software, as 
the original site will often remove the source as soon as the mandatory 
availability period is over.

> 
> My interpretation is that it's fine for them to distribute an
> unmodified binary as long as they tell people "you can get the source
> from http://pidgin.im/"  And I'm personally ok with that.

And they only distribute it using HTTP.


-- 
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.