In article <1992Aug16.184115.27017@wixer.cactus.org> rhodesia@wixer.UUCP (Felix S. Gallo) writes:
quoted text
>pmacdona@sanjuan (Peter MacDonald) writes:
>>
>>Please go back and (re)read my first SLS posting.  In it I clearly
>>state that Softlanding will make C source available as per GPL, but that 
>>they discouraged it.  However, I expect few to want it because it would
>>be horrendously large.
>
>How 'available' will it be, considering the next paragraph in which
>you say that you don't actually have the source yourself?  If I buy
>your distribution, will you then, at no extra cost, send me the
>source?  Didn't think so.

First off, go read the GPL - you might learn something.  Then read the
excellent observations someone (I forget who) posted today - it was
worth reading, made valid points, and wasn't just someone going off
half-cocked.  Guess what I think of your post?

quoted text
>>To be clear, I have not, and will not, volunteer to set up a 
>>centrally administered source tree for Linux.  Although I am not denying
>>that there may be some merit to it, I just don't have the time (do you?).
>
>If you don't have time to comply with the GPL, then you're in the
>wrong business.

Mr. Macdonald does not have to 'set up a centrally administered source
tree for Linux' to hold true to the terms of the GPL.  You are making
a completely baseless attack - he has said he will make available
source, if requested, charging only for distribution costs.  That is
all the GPL requires him to do.

quoted text
>>Instead, I did something that wasn't all that difficult [...]
>
>If it isn't all that difficult, then why are you balking at providing
>a (very easy to put together) source tree?  If you want to make money
>by distributing the software, you have to obey the rules which the
>software was written under.  Your laziness is no excuse.

Putting together a source tree and a binary distribution are worlds
apart - have you done either?  The GPL (the 'rules') do not require him
to make available a complete source tree - only the source to the
programs which he distributes as part of his SLS release, as requested
by someone who has purchased the package from SLS.

Please, don't even consider responding until you know what you are
talking about in terms of what SLS is responsible for doing, and then
I expect you won't want to post - what SLS is doing is perfectly
legal, *as long as they make available source for GNU/Copylefted
products at distribution cost for the next three years*, which Peter
Macdonald has said he will do (i.e. make sure is done).  SLS is not
even required to do that for various X stuff.

(Yes, this is mildly inflammatory, but this discussion really is
getting out of hand.  Also, I apologize if my distinctions between
Peter Macdonald and SLS aren't clear - they are separate entities.)

-- 
                                    +      Jim Winstead Jr. (CSci '95)
                                    |      Harvey Mudd College, WIBSTR
                                    |   jwinstea@jarthur.Claremont.EDU
                                    + or jwinstea@fenris.Claremont.EDU