🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3885@balrog.ctron.com> smith@ctron.com writes:
>In article <ut5e6INNg6r@early-bird.think.com>, barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>>I don't think so.  The GPL says that if you provide binary-only
>>distribution, you must offer to make the corresponding source available for
>>at least three years.

>I still don't see why this should be so, if we keep our product completely
>in sync with the latest release and explicitly decommit any support for
>the old product, providing source code to those who refuse to update, why
>should that be the case?

Aha, that's different.  Once you added "providing source code to those who
refuse to update", you got yourself off the hook.  The point is that anyone
should be able to get the source code to whatever they're running.  You can
either provide the source code alongside the binaries (in which case, if
someone downloads the binary but not the source, and you later delete both,
it's their own fault for not grabbing the source when it was there) or
offer to make source available through a separate channel.  In this second
case, the recipient has three years to take you up on that offer, and you
must be prepared to deliver the source corresponding to any binary you
distributed during that time.

-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar