* On 2016 15 Aug 11:25 -0500, Rob Owens wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 8:34 AM, Simon Hobson <li...@thehobsons.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > There was one other thing that came to mind earlier ...
> > If ${company} decided to do that, and they had previously distributed
> > binaries ... doesn't the GPL mean they are required to provide the sources
> > to anyone they've distributed the binaries to ? So removing the sources
> > from public repositories would actually be a breach of the GPL (given some
> > limitations regarding timing).
> > And that raises an interesting problem for other people distributing
> > binaries. If (say) I were distributing binaries for ${foo} and relying on
> > (say) a git repository for providing the source - where would that leave me
> > if those git sources suddenly disappear ?
> > Certainly something for anyone building systems to bear in mind. I know
> > lots of people who take the attitude - don't keep it, you can download it
> > again.
> >
>
> My understanding is that the source must be made available for 3 years
> after the last binary was made available.
> See Section 6:
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
Even so, a tarball with nothing but the source files--no build
files--would satisfy that requirement. Certainly, there is no
requirement for the development history and patch changes to be
released so long as the distributed binary *could* be built from the
released source.
- Nate
--
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."
Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
