Darga <[email protected]> added the comment: Another one: Am I complying with GPL if I offer binaries on an FTP server and sources by way of a link to a source code repository in a version control system, like CVS or Subversion?
This is acceptable as long as the source checkout process does not become burdensome or otherwise restrictive. Anybody who can download your object code should also be able to check out source from your version control system, using a publicly available free software client. Users should be provided with clear and convenient instructions for how to get the source for the exact object code they downloaded—they may not necessarily want the latest development code, after all. In the end, I think some people's panties get too far up in a twist. It *is* acceptable to provide just the binaries, with the license, and a clear means on how to obtain the source - which is what KMP did. The GPL even allows for me to provide source by written offer, if I choose. Heck, I could provide it on paper printout only, too, after you've written-offer'd me. There's no violation here - he wasn't working to hide the use of GPLd software - he provided a means to grab the source of the libraries used. In no way was he blocking the convey or propagation of the GPLd source used inside his binaries. All I'm saying is - don't get so damned self-righteous. It's not like he's got the libs embedded and is selling his software and not giving any props off to the GPLd FFmpeg. ________________________________________________ FFmpeg issue tracker <[email protected]> <https://roundup.ffmpeg.org/issue820> ________________________________________________
