Got it Thanks Bruce.
On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 6:17 AM Bruce Perens <bruce.per...@opensource.org> wrote: > Is this really unclear? If you didn't distribute source code with the > binary, you need to make sure that it's kept available for three years > after the last time you distributed a binary copy, or the last time that > any of your business relationships such as dealers and distributors did. I > mention the dealers and distributors because the three-year obligation is > theirs as well, but they generally have no idea how to fulfill it. > Fulfilling the source code responsibility for them is better than having > them (and you) get sued, and then having them sue you. > > Because this is license-discuss, and I'm not here to market my services, I > will speak with your attorney _for_free_ if they need some clarity. > > Thanks > > Bruce > > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, > under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of > Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: > > 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, > > 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, > > c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer > to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is > allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you > received the program in object code or executable form with such > an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) > > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:02 AM, David Woolley <for...@david-woolley.me.uk> > wrote: > >> On 02/08/18 08:09, Thorbjørn Vynne wrote: >> >> For an end-of-life commercial product that are using GPL based software, >>> can any one clarify if its a requirement to keep having making the source >>> available even though no more products are shipped or serviced. >>> >> >> Please explain what is not clear in the wording of the GPL. In any case, >> if it is unclear, only your own lawyer can give you an opinion on which you >> can safely rely. >> >> Also note that the GPL strongly hints that any commercial distributor >> should supply the source at the time they supply the binary; otherwise they >> enter into a commitment to supply the source to non-customers. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> License-discuss mailing list >> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >> >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >> > > > > -- > Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering > Standards committee chair, license committee member, co-founder, Open > Source Initiative > President, Open Research Institute > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
