Ok, if this is all true, then IMHO, ideally the necessary sources would be included with every build (even binary) of mingw gcc, with a big README explaining these legal requirements.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Earnie Boyd <ear...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Ray Donnelly wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> On Oct 26 16:10, Ray Donnelly wrote: >>>> I've never seen any precedent of anyone ever doing this anywhere. >>>> >>>> Are you saying we are all in violation here? If so, 'we' includes a >>>> huge amount of developers and applications (every Windows C++ >>>> application built with GCC!) >>> >>> No, that's not the case. This is the kind of FUD which is spread >>> way too often, unfortunately. There's an important difference here. >>> >>> Assuming you create a Linux application which is linked against glibc, >>> then you can provide binaries of your application, as well as sources if >>> it's an open source project, at your sole discretion. There's no reason >>> to provide glibc together with your application since you can be pretty >>> sure that glibc exists on any target computer. >>> >>> But what if you *do* provide glibc together with your application? In >>> that case you provide a binary of a (L)GPLed product. Now that you >>> provide this binary, you're also required to provide the sources for >>> that binary since your user has the right to get the sources as well. >>> >>> Keep in mind that the GPL is a user-centric license. In a way, you as >>> developer are not the beneficiary of this license, but the user of the >>> product is, by making sure that the user retains the right to see the >>> sources of the product, whoever distributes that product. >>> >>> Does that make the situation clearer? >>> >> >> No, less clear, you've said that I've just spread some FUD, then >> appear to repeat exactly what I said. >> >> In your response, s/glibc/libstdc++.dll/ to see what I mean! >> >> I build a Qt application (Necessitas Qt Creator) for Windows and we >> distribute it with libstdc++-6.dll, so from what I'm gathering, we >> should also be providing the sources for this? >> >> Many thanks for increasing the U factor in FUD! > > I understood Corinna to mean "This is the kind of FUD" relative to the > "you don't need to distribute source, just point somewhere else" FUD > and the reason I butted in. If you distribute libstc++-6.dll then yes > you need to distribute the source that created it. > > -- > Earnie > -- https://sites.google.com/site/earnieboyd > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > The Windows 8 Center > In partnership with Sourceforge > Your idea - your app - 30 days. Get started! > http://windows8center.sourceforge.net/ > what-html-developers-need-to-know-about-coding-windows-8-metro-style-apps/ > _______________________________________________ > Mingw-w64-public mailing list > Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Windows 8 Center In partnership with Sourceforge Your idea - your app - 30 days. Get started! http://windows8center.sourceforge.net/ what-html-developers-need-to-know-about-coding-windows-8-metro-style-apps/ _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
