On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 01:05:57AM +0200, Kalle Svensson wrote:
Hash: SHA1
[Tomasz Wegrzanowski]
If a binary is distributed for a fee I am entitled to receive the sources according to GPL 3b at a minimum charge covering only the costs of the physical transfer.
Only if YOU got this binary, you are entitled to get the sources. The fact that someone distributes binary or sources to other people doesn't entitle you to anything.
Wrong. Clause 3b from the GPL:
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;
This is aplicable only in case when they distribute without binaries without sources, what isn't true in this case.
Somewhat related, the cool URI of the week: http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi
Question 6 deals with exactly this question.
As a side note, this quiz is repeating very popular misunderstanding that method of linking decides wheather something is considered 'derived work' or not. Just because you link 2 things (question 5) doesn't mean that they automatically create 'derived work' under American or other law. So correct answer for question 5 may be 1 in some circumstances.