Re: GPL and Other License Source-Code Compliance

schivmeister · 2009-06-05 16:22:49

I've sent this to the dev-public list, but for the benefit of those not using the MLs, here it is:

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?

Allan · 2009-06-06 02:12:21

You can't post to the dev list, only the devs can. You should also look in the bug tracker and http://ftp.archlinux.org/sources/ .

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...)

schivmeister · 2009-06-06 21:02:35

Ahh no wonder..I was suspecting that my mail didn't get through.

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.

Last edited by schivmeister (2009-06-06 22:48:27)

Allan · 2009-06-07 01:42:45

Just because Software A is GPL does not mean you would have to host SDK A with Binary B, because you can not change the license of other peoples software... I'm not sure waht you would have to do in a real work case, or even if Software A actually could be GPL licensed in that case. However, I am not expert on the matter.

schivmeister · 2009-06-07 12:57:33

Thanks Allan, at least I have another view now.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-06-05 16:22:49

Re: GPL and Other License Source-Code Compliance

#2 2009-06-06 02:12:21

Re: Re: GPL and Other License Source-Code Compliance

#3 2009-06-06 21:02:35

Re: Re: GPL and Other License Source-Code Compliance

#4 2009-06-07 01:42:45

Re: Re: GPL and Other License Source-Code Compliance

#5 2009-06-07 12:57:33

Re: Re: GPL and Other License Source-Code Compliance

Board footer