[Ilugc] Question about GPL violations [closure]

Rahul Sundaram sundaram at fedoraproject.org
Wed Feb 13 16:03:00 IST 2008


ஆமாச்சு wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 Feb 2008 2:41:40 pm Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> However distributing a source to one person does not
>> automatically entitle other people to demand the source from the
>> originator providing the binaries.
> 
> If they are purchasing the software or once they have obtained the software? 
> then whether they demand or not,
> 
> A software under GPL need only be distributed with source to them. If not the 
> link to source should be made available to them (need not be for all public) 
> for downloading the same. 
> 
> I think I am complementing your statement :-)

Right. There are three different clauses for distribution of source. In 
GPL v2 section 3 clause a,b and c covers it.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html

a) source with binary
b) binary only with written offer to provide source
c) binary with information on where to get the source (only for 
non-commercial distribution)

Here b) has more difficult requirements and the best way to is to give 
the source at the point of binary distribution and avoid the mess which 
is the option most distributions opt for. Summarizing it more is 
difficult and best information is the source ;-) Just read the license. 
Note that these clauses differ between GPLv2 and GPLv3 where GPLv3 
introduces additional clarifications and some changes in requirements.

Rahul


More information about the ilugc mailing list