Article View: gnu.misc.discuss
Article #764A question about the GPL with respect to binary distributions
From: Partially Grown Rhododendron
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:54
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:54
50 lines
2532 bytes
2532 bytes
Suppose (hypothetically) that I want to distribute some binaries for various bits of GNU code. I make up a tar-file of all the binaries and put them up for FTP (making sure that I have included all the copying notices and warranty's). Now, clearly if I include the source in the same tar-file, then I am doing everything needed by the GPL. But what happens if I put a second tar-file on the *same* site, in the same directory (with a clear labelling of what the two files are)? Does this fall under clause 3(a) of the GPL (version 2): | a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable | source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections | 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, Or, would I still have to keep a copy of the source code available for up to 3 years in order to satisfy 3(b): | b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three | years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your | cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete | machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be | distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium | customarily used for software interchange; or, In other words, is putting the source in the same directory as the executables classified as `accompanying'? Ok, final case. Suppose I don't put the source in the same directory; what obligations am I under then? My guess is that it is definitely going to be 3(b) even if it appears on other (or the same) FTP site; is that right? (I do remember Richard Stallman's post about this, but that post I don't think covered the initial case I propose and that is the case that I want to find out about...) phil richards p.s. This is a hypothetical case as far as I am concerned -- I have no intention of creating a binary-only distribution. However, a case of this nature has recently occurred and I would like to know what obligations, if any, have not been satisfied. -- pgr@prg.ox.ac.uk -- programming research group -- oxford -- uk
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<pgr.223645.17Aug1992@prg.ox.ac.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!ox-prg!pgrShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!ox-prg!pgr From: pgr@ecs.ox.ac.uk (Partially Grown Rhododendron) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: A question about the GPL with respect to binary distributions Message-ID: <pgr.223645.17Aug1992@prg.ox.ac.uk> Date: 17 Aug 92 21:54:35 GMT Sender: news@comlab.ox.ac.uk Reply-To: pgr@prg.ox.ac.uk (Partially Grown Rhododendron) Lines: 50