🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: gnu.misc.discuss
Article #764

A question about the GPL with respect to binary distributions

#764
From: Partially Grown Rhododendron
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:54
50 lines
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!pgr

Show 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