[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: java-getopt
Mariusz Nowostawski wrote:
> 1. Is it ok with the distribution of LGPL (or GPL) code in binary form
> simply place a note that source code is available at such and such URL...
> 2. Is it ok for a COMMERCIAL software binary distribution, which uses some
> LGPLed code to actually not include sources of the distributed LGPLed
> parts, but place a note with URL specifying where such sources can be
> obtained?
(1.) is allowed under the following requirements:
Extracted from the LGPL: "If distribution of object code is made by
offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering
equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place satisfies
the requirement to distribute the source code, even though third parties
are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code."
This applies equally to both commercial and non commercial
distributions.
So, if you distribute your binary distribution on CD, it is ok to put
the sources on a separate CD, but it would not be OK to require Internet
access (through a URL) to get the sources. If, on the other hand, you
distribute the binaries on a web site, then it would be OK as long as it
is an equivalent access! No, it wouldn't be OK to provide the binaries
on a highly available internet site, and put the sources on a slow,
limited access, ftp site... [Yes there are "malicious people" always
looking for ways to circumvent source distribution requirements]. So,
in summary, you do not need to force the end user to download the
complete sources, but he must have the choice of downloading it or not.
> Not that I have actually such a problem right now ;o) just curious.
If somebody was willing to compile a FAQ, it could include a section on
licensing...
Anybody inteested?
Etienne
--
Etienne M. Gagnon egagnon@j-meg.com
SableVM: http://www.sablevm.org/
SableCC: http://www.sablecc.org/