On Oct 26 12:05, Earnie Boyd 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.
I didn't mean to imply you spread FUD, but that you're a victim to FUD. > > 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'm sorry, but it's not really my fault, is it? > 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. Exactly. Provide the binary -> provide the source. That's pretty simple from my POV. I never understood why that's a problem. Again, you're not doing that for you or for the developers of libstc++, you're doing it for the users. Even if 99% of the users don't understand the source and don't see the need to get it, they still have the *right* to it. Corinna ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
