![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/7ac4cfbacd19cf051c0b97f81a5ca11a.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 20:39, Thomas Hertweck wrote:
Juergen Weigert wrote:
[...] On the outside of the box there is the URL "www.novell.com/usersupport" This web page has a collection of 'Helpful links', one of these is called 'Source code' ...
GPL version 2, §3b reads:
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable format [...] provided that you also do one of the following: [...] b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, [...]
I am not a lawyer, but I can understand when some people have doubts that a URL on the outside of the box (or on media kit) pointing to a web site which has at the bottom a link (among many other links) that points yet to another web site that points to the source code is a "written offer, valid for at least three years that accompanies the binary packages" in the box...
Don't misunderstand me, I do not have a problem with the current situation! But I don't think it's as obvious and clear as some people would like to make us believe. However, if Novell's lawyers are happy with it, there's nothing more to say about it.
Cheers, Th.
I don't understand any of this. Are you proposing that Novell intentionally hid the link so that people cannot get to the source code when they wanted it? This I would think not. Or is the problem that the link is too difficult to find, (at least for people un-schooled in the ways of open source)? Not that I would know what such a person could do with the source code anyway. But if that is your complaint then a short not on the list saying "Could you make the link to the source code more obvious for un-initiated persons?" would be in order. But the so called Journalist, who claimed SUSE was in violation of the GPL before he even got his facts right was either irresponsible, or most probably malicious. To re-iterate my point: A serious journalist would have confronted Novell with his accusations to see if he had missed a little label on the DVD box or such. But since he didn't he was being either iresponsable or more probably malicious. And if he can throw accusations around, I might as well do so also: Has anybody checked to see if he has a financial connection to a compnay that could profit from such misinformation? Jerry Westrick --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-help@opensuse.org