[sldev] GPL issues....

Nik Radford nik at terminaldischarge.net
Tue Aug 19 01:36:10 PDT 2008


I just read futher down in the faq.. meh. Stupid license crap.


Someone read the FAQ and all of it, and figure out who is right and wrong
so we can move on please.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm

>
>
> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: Re: [sldev] GPL issues....
> From:    "Nik Radford" <nik at terminaldischarge.net>
> Date:    Tue, August 19, 2008 9:29 am
> To:      "Ambrosia" <chaosstar at gmail.com>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Well he doesn't have to supply the full source on the site.
>
> Going back to Gareths words about a written request, Henri can just give
> the complete source code only when asked for by written request.
>
>>From the FAQ This is for GPLv2 which is what the viewer is licensed
>> under:
>
> What does “written offer valid for any third party” mean in GPLv2? Does
> that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program
> no matter what?
>
>     If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody
> who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
>
>     If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source
> code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the
> source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the
> binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this
> written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries
> directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along
> with the written offer.
>
>     The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so
> that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order
> the source code from you.
>
>
>
>>>From the GPL:
>>
>> 'Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
>>     source code...'
>>
>> 'If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
>> access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
>> access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
>> distribution of the source code'
>>
>> Actually Henri, Gareth is right. You need to provide the original
>> sources of the whole application with your patches, (or everything
>> with your changes) in full.
>>
>> Now, I will not make any assumptions about how he approached the
>> matter, but I don



More information about the SLDev mailing list