GnuPG distribution - Windows

[Samuel }slund]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:19:24PM +0200, DeBug wrote:
> 
> >>> Pointing them to ftp.gnupg.org (if you use an unmodified version of
> >>> gpg) is enough, to fulfill the license.
> 
> LEM>> I think it doesn't.

After rereading section 3 of the licese I am prety sure pointing to
gnupg.org does not fulfill the license requirement.

<<<<<<<< filosophy deleted>>>>>>>>>
 
> And my understanding of Samuel's question was more along the lines of
> "I don't really care about the politics of free software, please just
> say me what I must do to be safe legally".

The specific question was if the tar.gz is the complete distribution or if
I needed to include something else.
Othervise that is a corect interpretation of what I wanted to know yes.
Please do not misunderstand me here. When involved in legal stuff politics
and philosoofy have to be left out, the few lawyers I know are definitely
not philosofers. Personaly I have read alot of RMS and some of Eric`s 
texts on the subject and agree with many of the ideas presented there.
(A question I have been thinking of asking the FSF is what (more than RMS) 
guarantees that the FSF will still work for free software in some distant
future. We leave alot in their hands with the standard way of using the
GPL. But that definitely do not belong here.)

> > The other important idea is INTEGRITY - when one says GnuPG all
> > others expect we are talking about the same thing.
> 
> Hmm... The GPL is not about integrity. You can still call your
> modified (or trojaned) versions GnuPG, and not touch the version
> number. Any license that has restrictions trying to enforce integrity
> is generally labeled as non-free by the FSF.

If I remember the license corectly (I have not checked this) anyone who
makes changes to the original source have to note it in some way in the
source or documentation that the original authors work is modified. I do
not remember how this should be done.

//Samuel