On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:10:33AM +0000, Matthew Seaman wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 28/02/2010 01:56:27, Chad Perrin wrote: > > Actually, once your project becomes a commercial enterprise, the GPL > > stops allowing reference to upstream sources to suit the requirements of > > code redistribution. If you sell GPLed software, you have to provide the > > sources yourself -- and, if you offer the *option* of access to the > > sources without actually ensuring that everybody gets a copy of the > > sources right away, you have to maintain sources for each distributed > > version for a number of years after the last such distribution. I'm not > > saying you *don't* have to maintain sources that long after the fact if > > you make sure everybody gets a copy right away; I haven't read the text > > of the GPL in detail in a while, and don't recall that specific detail. > > Hmmm... I think the concept of 'modification' is pretty important > here. If you're just redistributing software without modifying it, > you've fulfilled the intent of the GPL simply by giving a link to a > well-known download site. After all, what's the difference between > that, and your outsourcing a download facility to a service provider > like, say, SourceForge?
The difference is that when you just give a link to a well-known site you have no guarantees that they will keep the source for that particular version of the software in question for as long as needed. Going by the strict letter of the GPL (v2) I don't see that merely providing a link to somebody else's site is sufficient. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1...@student.uu.se _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
