Another reason I ask is because I'm curious about cases like the following:
SDK A forbids its redistribution (licensed as a kind of open-source without third-parties being able to host it)
Software A consists of Source A and can be built to Binary A (licensed under GPL-2)
Software A allows users to download Source A and use a personal copy of SDK A to build Binary B
Since GPL-2 requires hosting the sources, this would mean anyone trying to distribute Binary B would have to host Source A with whatever of SDK A was used to build it. That would be redistribution of SDK A and us such, would violate SDK A's terms.
So, if the license of Software A itself were to become GPL-3, would it then mean that the above restriction is no longer a concern? Because only Binary B is being hosted then; nobody is hosting any part of SDK A and hence no violation of terms occurs.
]]>I believe that technically, we only have to host GPL2 source as GPL3 does not have such a strong condition (pointing upstream is OK). So, if we licensed all GPL2 and above software as GPL3, we would only have to host the kernel source. (Note: that is my interpretation and not the devs in general or any official position...)
]]>1) Is it just a matter of doing an --allsource and hosting it somewhere accessible?
2) Does it concern all versions of the (L)GPL (3 in particular)?
3) Any other licenses that need such compliance?