🚀 go-pugleaf

People are losing perspective on what Richard Stallman said as well
as what the GPL says.

In article <12MAY199200345333@me.udel.edu> johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) 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.
> 
> 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.

This is completely out of line since no one has asked that binaries
stop be distributed (saving people the compile time) but only that the
GPL be followed in making source available.

> 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.

Again, an ftp site can make one file for source and one for binaries
and can let the user choose what to take.  Copying requirements apply to
distributors, not to users (retrievers).

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

Stallman basically said that the source should follow binaries to any
distribution site.  If you do not have room for the source, there is
little chance you will be able to create a binary yourself, so there is
little reason for you to make only the binary available.  If you really,
really want to make your binary copy available, find a site that
archives the source that will let you put it there.  (Here we are
talking about a principle, more than a legality, since non-commercial,
binary-only distributions are permitted under section 3c terms of the GPL. 

> 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.

Then you have misread it.  If you have the source and you make a
binary-only distribution, you have to attach a note that says that *you*
(individually or organizationally, not just anybody) will provide the
source upon request (a fee may be charged) for a certain period (3
years, I believe).  If you have only the binary and you want to make a
non-commercial distribution, then you can do so if you provide the
information you (or your organization) received on how to obtain
the source.

> Frankly, binary-only distributions strike me as a convenience.

This is not at issue.  Anyone is free to prepare and distribute
binary-only copies.  The only issues are to what that does and/or should
obligate the distributor.

> I didn't
> see mention of anyone _selling_ binaries without source

Because this is prohibited by the GPL (assuming you mean that they
refuse to provide source upon request).

> 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?

You are the first to call it a crime.  No one else has seen fit to
make that association.  But since you have, the idea is pretty simple.
Its like saying, "You can work here if you don't commit premeditated
murder on-site.  If you can't live with that, we can't offer you a job."
The GPL terms are not terribly onerous, as licenses go.  If you can't
live with the distributor terms, don't become one.

How about a new topic now, like:  How GNU software has helped me.
We could spend our lives on the negative; why not discuss some
of the positive for awhile.

Bob
--
What is baffling and annoying so many people is that something that you
can't see, hear, smell, taste or feel is becoming so important  --
digital information.  And no one's helping them cope.