On Thursday 01 March 2012 14:05:36 Peter Stuge wrote: > Ed W wrote: > > My understanding is that for a GPL licence one should provide a > > copy of these patches in the "code dump", not just an http link? > > Is that your understanding? > > I think your understanding is incomplete, and I recommend that you > read through the license again. > > There isn't just a single way to provide the source, but yes, if you > have downloaded and included a patch in your binary, then you have to > provide that patch yourself, because if you refer to someone else and > they stop providing the patch you would no longer be in compliance.
Peter's understanding seems to match my own. pointing someone to a URL that provides the source satisfies the GPL requirements. obviously if the linked source is incomplete or outdated, that's another matter, but if the full source is there, then the obligations have been met. alternatively, you could create a bundle of all the sources and provide it directly. companies tend to do this more because they modify the releases directly rather than a cleaner build approach. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
