Restriction on distribution by Novell?

[Matthew Flaschen]

Wilson, Andrew wrote:

> 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.

You're right; I misread "Eben's position is that GPLv2 requires a 
duistributor to provide **an offer for sources** only to a distributee 
who is legitimately in possession of a binary obtained from that 
distributor." as "Eben's position is that GPLv2 requires a distributor 
to provide **sources** only to a distributee who is legitimately in 
possession of a binary obtained from that distributor."

> And how do you get a written offer?  You get it in 
> the box with the binaries.  In other words, you are a direct
> distributee.

I disagree with this.  First, I think physically transferred offers are 
definitely valid.  Thus, if I get a written offer from Novell, I can 
pass it on to someone else.  I also think the GPL makes clear that 
verbatim copies of written offers are valid.  Otherwise, a 
non-commercial (3c) distributor could only give out one copy.

> 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. ;-)

Actually, I think the FAQ makes it clear that verbatim copies are valid 
(i.e. you need not be a direct distributee):

"When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received 
from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer."

I might disagree with them about whether knowledge of a written offer is 
sufficient.  However, I'm undecided on that (see my previous email).

Anyway, even if I'm entirely wrong on this issue, their interpretation 
still isn't legally binding.

Matt Flaschen