🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992May11.181724.1@mdcbbs.com>, baur@mdcbbs.com writes...
>In article <1992May11.050005.2488@algor2.algorists.com>, jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler) writes:

>> Could I suggest that FSF license grant special permission for binary
>> archives, on a case by case basis?

>I sure hope so.

Ditto.

>The available disk space on my AT&T 3B1 has long since shrunk past the point
>where I can afford to keep all source code on-line.  Compiling gcc is a
>particularly hateful process since I have to back off a lot to floppy disk
>just to be able to load it.

Not only is it a waste of disk space, it's a waste of time and computing 
cycles for hundreds of people with identical cpu and OS to compile each 
revision of a GNU tool from scratch.  It's likewise a waste of bandwidth
to ftp the source when a binary-only distribution would be at least an
order of magnitude smaller.

>I also am not advocating violation of the copyleft -- having the source
>readily available on a better endowed machine is nice.

I'm not sure what "binary-only" site the original poster was referring to ...
but I've never seen a ~gnu directory that wasn't fully laden with the 
complete set of propaganda and pointers to the dozens of sites that do
carry a complete set of gnu source code.  From my reading of the copyleft,
the only obligation on those who distribute binaries is to make sure that
the recipients know that the software is free and that the source is 
available.  If it is compiled directly from the gnu distribution, the
address of the FSF should suffice.

Frankly, binary-only distributions strike me as a convenience.  I didn't
see mention of anyone _selling_ binaries without source;  so the crime
here is that someone was willing to share the time and effort that it
took to wade through the monkey-work of compiling -- and then make it 
freely available -- tying up their own machine in the process?

-- Bill (johnston@me.udel.edu)