Restriction on distribution by Novell?

Wilson, Andrew andrew.wilson at
Tue Sep 26 23:01:00 UTC 2006

Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> I also think it is irrelevant whether the third 
> party has any binary (regardless of its source).
> I haven't seen anything (except Wilson's recall of his conversation
> Moglen) supporting the idea that possession of a binary is required.

No, please quote me correctly.  My position (same as McCoy's) is
that only recipients with a written offer have standing to request
sources from a distributor under the Ts and Cs of that offer.  
And how do you get a written offer?  You get it in 
the box with the binaries.  In other words, you are a direct

> Finally, let's remember that the FSF interpretation is ultimately 
> irrelevant.  Only the GPL text itself is binding as a license, unless 
> the FSF is a copyright holder and you interpret the FAQ as an extra 
> permission (which is legally dubious at best).

In other words, you've reread the FAQ, and you realize that
the FSF's published interpretation of v2 is quite different from the 
position you and Mr. Tilly have been advocating. ;-)

Andy Wilson
Intel Open Source Technology Center

More information about the License-discuss mailing list