On Sunday 14 July 2002 14:20, Mike Noyes wrote: > On Sun, 2002-07-14 at 11:43, John Klar wrote: > > Just some observations about my interpretation of the GPL. Perhaps > > they won't be terribly popular, but hopefully it'll make a few > > people *think*. > > > > [2] Pointing requestors to the upstream source is NOT good enough. > > The distributor is required to provide the sources THEY use. > > John, > Would this apply to our packages (.lrp) also? If so, nearly all of > our packages are non-compliant. If I recall correctly, source of > packages only compiled (not modified) by us (LEAF) or the Linux > Router Project were always pointed upstream. I think Mathew Grant was > the only one to include package source along with .lrp packages he > produced.
AFAIK, in my understanding the SRC should be availiable where the binary is downloaded (linked is acceptable). Script is it's own SRC code. We've avoided problems by readily making the code available when requested (via mailing-list), though this probably isn't legal per the license. I believe all of Charles' packages are availiable legally since he links the src from the package download area of his site. The SRC does _not_ have to be available within the package itself. >> IMHO, you cannot restrict anybody from taking your GPL'd package and >> codistributing it with a closed source binary. There is nothing in >> the GPL that prevents your scenario as long as they honor the rules >> of the GPL, ie. providing source for all the open source bits that >> make up the distribution. Worse, if it is not apparent how to get >> that source from you, they can cause a lot of trouble. Wording your >> license to prevent this case is itself a violation of the GPL. Very true, I was simply giving my opinion and personal feelings, not a legal interpretation to the license. I am free to give my blessing and encouragement to whomever I want. I did not make this clear, which I apologize for. A company could very easily do something like this legally, but I would not encourage it. > One more point to ponder. What if the whizzy closed source > "application" were a piece of hardware? Would you object to Fred's > Router Appliances, Inc. shipping a "free" copy of LEAF, including > source and development environment with every box? Not at all. I believe the company is giving due credit to the software in this instance. If they claimed the software was entirely theirs, I would feel otherwise. I believe that the GPL states that you cannot modify existing GPL code and license it as closed-source. Again, this is my interpretation of the license and my opinion.... not withstanding anyone else interpretation or opinion. -- ~Lynn Avants aka Guitarlynn guitarlynn at users.sourceforge.net http://leaf.sourceforge.net If linux isn't the answer, you've probably got the wrong question! ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
