Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:42:25AM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote: >> Since most open source licenses make the distributor responsible for >> providing the source, pointing to where you got the tarball from usually >> isn't sufficient to fulfil license requirements. As an example, I seem >> to recall the FSF stating that projects that host derivatives of GPL >> licensed software also had to host the source code. > > The GPLv2 allows you to charge for media. Strangely enough it doesn't > talk about online bandwidth. Using physical media is out for a build- > from-source option is out of the question. The fair thing to do is to > host the sources and include pointers to both, the hosted sources and > the originals (because it's good to know where those are), using the > hosted sources by default for build-from-source.
According to their FAQ: "If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide “equivalent access” to download the source—therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary. " [1] "If you make object code available on a network server, you have to provide the Corresponding Source on a network server as well." [2] "The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited." [3] But, I digress... -- Shawn Walker [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee [2] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AnonFTPAndSendSources [3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
