On Oct 26 21:11, Herb Thompson wrote: > On 2012-10-26 1:35 PM, Earnie Boyd wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Ruben Van Boxem > > <vanboxem.ru...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Also, can someone clarify that you only need to be able to provider the > >> source when asked for it vs providing it in some public place, which might > >> not even be reachable everywhere in the world?
Per GPLv2 and v3, this requires a *written* offer to provide the source code when asked for. GPLv3 also restricts this right even more, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html, section 3b. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html, section 6c (and 6b). So, usually you provide source code in a public place. I'm still puzzled, though, why providing source code is such a hassle, apparently. After all, this is called open source for a reason. Again, for the third time, Open Source is *not* made for the developer in the first place. The idea is to grant the *user* the right to access the source code of the application she's using, and the GPL is designed this way to make sure that this right isn't conveniently forgotten along the way, just because a developer is too lazy (and we devs *are* lazy, isn't it?) to create a neat source package and to upload it in a *visible* way to the same place as the object package. > > AIUI, at least for v2 of the license, you need to be able to provide > > the source for the exact version the user has in possession via the > > same media that the binary was delivered when asked for it. It is > > easier if you just deliver the source and the same time you deliver > > the binary since you can tell the user he already has the source. > > > > Not that this thread needs yet another opinion, but this is an > interesting and important discussion. > > So two minor comments: > > (1) As I see it, the distinction between "distribute" and "provide" is > important. All of the major Linux distros I'm acquainted with (e.g. EL, > Suse, Ubuntu, etc) *distribute* libstdc++.so via ISO images that do not > include the source code, but *provide* the source code via some other > means (that isn't always very visible to the end user). > > (2) Depending on how one interprets "via the same media that the binary > was delivered", I'm not sure that all of the major distros would achieve > that. If for example I obtain a libstdc++.so via an Ubuntu ISO, I'm not > sure I could get the source code in the same form. GPLv2 is older than the Internet. At the time the idea of bulk data interchange was more or less restricted to physical media. Read section 3 of the "terms and conditions for copying" here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html Today a "medium customarily used for software interchange" is the Internet. If you pull the binary ISO from the Fedora project page, everything's ok if you also can pull the source packages from the same page. Or, FWIW, it's mirrors. Corinna ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WINDOWS 8 is here. Millions of people. Your app in 30 days. Visit The Windows 8 Center at Sourceforge for all your go to resources. http://windows8center.sourceforge.net/ join-generation-app-and-make-money-coding-fast/ _______________________________________________ Mingw-w64-public mailing list Mingw-w64-public@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
