Re: blatant GPL violation of ext2 and reiserfs filesystem drivers

On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 02:16:07PM +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> That sentence is not clear to me.  Are you're saying that it was
> possible to download the object code without source code, or that
> _only_ the object code was available? 

Why don't you go and look instead of quibbling in the abstract?
The binary is *currently* available, and no source code is.

> No.  They must provide the 'written offer' to the person downloading
> the binary, if they did not make available source code to that person.

Why are you bothering to nitpick Harald?  Do you not realise he
understands the GPL better than you do, having agreed over 30 settlements
against people violating it?  He's even got courts to grant injunctions!

> And, again, I'm not a lawyer.  FSF legals will presumably have a more
> authoritative answer.

Yes.  You're not a lawyer.  Stop wasting everybody's time by trying to
interpret a legal document.