Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 11:58:59 +0900 From: Stephen Turnbull To: ken AT jarrett DOT als DOT com Cc: DJGPP AT SUN DOT SOE DOT CLARKSON DOT EDU Subject: Possible FAQ: Distributing djgpp (or any other large package) Date: Sun, 16 Apr 1995 20:16:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Ken Bowen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Both the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE and the GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE contain provisions that are much more flexible than seems to be appreciated: [... lots of good talking points to the effect that keeping sources in the same place as binaries may not be required omitted ...] Well, some people have been told by the FSF when asked that pointing to another server is not good enough; it must be the same place. The point is that the sources must be the sources used to compile the binaries, and in the FSF's interpretation, the way to guarantee this is to keep them in the same place. No, you apparently don't have to under those terms, but if you don't keep them in the same place and a customer cannot duplicate his executable from the sources available, you open yourself to a lawsuit. If you can show that your procedure is to install source and binaries from the same place into the distribution directories, then you're in good shape. If you don't do that, the burden of proof is on you. Hard disk space, even in GCC source quantities, is a lot cheaper than a court appearance.... I believe that the FSF specifically disallows the offline strategy (store sources on tape). Whether any of that would stand up in court I don't know. IMHO, supporting freeware means taking other people's licenses on their interpretation, creating a body of practice that makes the interpretation more compelling. Yes, it could still be challenged, but courts do often look at community standards. -- Stephen Turnbull / Yaseppochi-gumi / http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/ anon FTP: turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp Check out Kansai-WWW, too ------------> http://pclsp2.kuicr.kyoto-u.ac.jp/