Hi Dave, Thanks for responding. Comments in-line.
On 21 Dec 2009, at 10:50, Dave Neary wrote: > Hi, > > Darren Long wrote: >> Hmm. IANAL, but in my naivety, I would have thought that maemo.org would >> have to provide source for the binaries they (have) distribute(d). > > Indeed! But the source and the binaries are not the same thing. > > There are a few ways to deal with the source requirement - and if you > are merely redistributing binaries made by someone else, you don't need > to provide sources, you only need to be able to point someone to the > sources. Ah, but I didn't build the binaries that maemo.org is distributing, maemo.org did. Additionally, I have provided source for the works that I have distributed - I've only distributed it to maemo.org, so my GPL commitments are satisfied. > > Another way is to ship sources with the binary. > > And finally, the one you may be alluding to, the written offer to > provide source code, valid for at least three years, to provide the > source code on request. Surely that means that maemo.org need to provide source for the binaries that they have built and distributed, and as they don't automatically provide source with each binary they distribute, need to satisfy the 3 years availability requirement. > > So in the case where maemo.org is merely providing a platform for > someone to share GPL licenced products, all we need to do is give a link > back to the place the source package, or even forward on the written > offer that the packager gave us. But, I provided the source to maemo.org via dput to the autobuilder. I have made no further commitment to anyone, and the way I see it, don't need to. I'm not trying to be contentious, or have a rant about freedom. I just want to understand my position and maemo.org's position, with respect to the requirement to provide source code. Cheers, Darren _______________________________________________ maemo-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
