Changeset - dfcd7ef4aeae
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
Martin Michlmayr (tbm) - 10 years ago 2014-04-24 23:12:21
tbm@cyrius.com
Consistent usage of "noncommercial"
1 file changed with 1 insertions and 1 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
compliance-guide.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -425,25 +425,25 @@ copying fee.  GPLv2 permits ``a charge no more than your cost of
 
physically performing source distribution''.  This fee must be reasonable.
 
If your cost of copying and mailing a CD is more than around \$10, you
 
should perhaps find a cheaper CD stock and shipment method.  It is simply
 
not in your interest to try to overcharge the community.  Abuse of this
 
provision in order to make a for-profit enterprise of source code
 
provision will likely trigger enforcement action.
 

	
 
Second, note that the last line makes the offer valid to anyone who
 
requests the source.  This is because v2~\S~3(b) requires that offers be
 
``to give any third party'' a copy of the Corresponding Source.  GPLv3 has
 
a similar requirement, stating that an offer must be valid for ``anyone
 
who possesses the object code''.  These requirements indicated in
 
v2~\S~3(c) and v3~\S~6(c) are so that non-commercial redistributors may
 
v2~\S~3(c) and v3~\S~6(c) are so that noncommercial redistributors may
 
pass these offers along with their distributions.  Therefore, the offers
 
must be valid not only to your customers, but also to anyone who received
 
a copy of the binaries from them.  Many distributors overlook this
 
requirement and assume that they are only required to fulfill a request
 
from their direct customers.
 

	
 
The option to provide an offer for source rather than direct source
 
distribution is a special benefit to companies equipped to handle a
 
fulfillment process.  GPLv2~\S~3(c) and GPLv3~\S~6(c) avoid burdening
 
noncommercial, occasional redistributors with fulfillment request
 
obligations by allowing them to pass along the offer for source as they
 
received it.
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)