Discussion about SPM / Repo (Split from other topic)

[_jr_]

The GPL say you need to provide the source, not that it should come in the same package

But it is not easy to fulfill all GPL provisions otherwise. I suspect most or at least a majority of PNDs containing GPL code and not the source to that GPLed code are actually violating the GPL. My PND (PySolFC) does, because it only provides a link to the PyGame source. It would be nice, if I could optionally upload a seaparate source package to the repo.

 

[WizardStan]

Is distributing gpl on a proprietary repo legal?

Absolutely. The GPL says absolutely nothing about how you distribute, just so long as you provide the source upon request to those that have legally obtained the binary.

I suspect most or at least a majority of PNDs containing GPL code and not the source to this GPLed code are actually violating the GPL.

In what way? Supplying the code with the binary isn't a requirement of the GPL, you only need to provide it upon request. What do you think GLP'd PNDs are violating?

 

[_jr_]

I suspect most or at least a majority of PNDs containing GPL code and not the source to this GPLed code are actually violating the GPL.

In what way? Supplying the code with the binary isn't a requirement of the GPL, you only need to provide it upon request. What do you think GLP'd PNDs are violating?

Well, that would have been pretty easy to research yourself. It is even spelled out explicitly in the GPL FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites

The GPL 3 contains the following in Section 6d (GPLv2 has similar provisions in section 3, that seem to be even more restrictive to me, but IANAL)

Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

Therefore a PND on the Pandora repo not containing the source has to provide 'clear directions' and is '[...]obligated to ensure that it [the corresponding source] is available for as long as needed[...]'.

While a link to an external site not under control of the PND maintainer may be good enough for the first requirement, it obviously cannot satisfy the second (it might just become invalid upon the next web site restructuring). I haven't checked that many PNDs, but I haven't seen a (fully or partially) GPL covered PND not containing the source providing more than a link, and some do not even do that (one of the DosBox PND versions had no indication of source availability at all). In the case of the PySolFC PND the PyGame source might not be part of the corresponding source because it could fall under the system library exception, but IANAL


That's why a source package repo would be a good idea. It would provide a simple solution to be safe in terms of GPL compliance (and other copyleft licenses) without increasing PND size or requiring lawyers.

 

[commander-beef]

(one of the DosBox PND versions had no indication of source availability at all). In the case of the PySolFC PND the PyGame source might not be part of the corresponding source because it could fall under the system library exception, but IANAL 

You talking about all that licenses and GPL stuff, but you didnt bothered to read readme [that you should read] for DosBox that i provided with PND. 

where:

DosBox EX Ultimate [Whole GUI and adjustments] - is a © of StreaK and its DonationWare
DosBox [core] - is a © of DosBox Team & StreaK - and its GPL OSS
Dont forget to support guys from http://www.dosbox.com

License for DosBox [core]
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

 

[commander-beef]

And i see a gravediggin' on purpose here...

 

[WizardStan]

Well, that would have been pretty easy to research yourself.

I was going to apologize for misunderstanding and engage in further discourse, but that's an extremely arrogant statement and I see nothing further that can be gained from talking with you.

 

[_jr_]

(one of the DosBox PND versions had no indication of source availability at all). In the case of the PySolFC PND the PyGame source might not be part of the corresponding source because it could fall under the system library exception, but IANAL

You talking about all that licenses and GPL stuff, but you didnt bothered to read readme [that you should read] for DosBox that i provided with PND.


where:

DosBox EX Ultimate [Whole GUI and adjustments] - is a © of StreaK and its DonationWare


DosBox [core] - is a © of DosBox Team & StreaK - and its GPL OSS


Dont forget to support guys from http://www.dosbox.com


License for DosBox [core]

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

I didn't check newer version (am not using DosBox currently). But my point is actually that even this added information is probably not good enough, while uploading the corresponding source (of the GPLed parts) in a separate package and linking to that would remove all legal doubts. Especially if there are modifications to the dosbox core, it is neccessary to provide the code used to built the version distributed (and build instructions if it isn't obvious). A link to dosbox.com can never fulfill the GPL provisions in this case.

 

[commander-beef]

(one of the DosBox PND versions had no indication of source availability at all). In the case of the PySolFC PND the PyGame source might not be part of the corresponding source because it could fall under the system library exception, but IANAL

You talking about all that licenses and GPL stuff, but you didnt bothered to read readme [that you should read] for DosBox that i provided with PND.


where:

DosBox EX Ultimate [Whole GUI and adjustments] - is a © of StreaK and its DonationWare


DosBox [core] - is a © of DosBox Team & StreaK - and its GPL OSS


Dont forget to support guys from http://www.dosbox.com


License for DosBox [core]

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

I didn't check newer version (am not using DosBox currently). But my point is actually that even this added information is probably not good enough, while uploading the corresponding source (of the GPLed parts) in a separate package and linking to that would remove all legal doubts. Especially if there are modifications to the dosbox core, it is neccessary to provide the code used to built the version distributed (and build instructions if it isn't obvious). A link to dosbox.com can never fulfill the GPL provisions in this case.

I provided binding license with a link in readme

I provided link to the source on dosbox.com in readme

And because i didnt done anything special [in code of dosbox (i was messing around with compiler options and makefiles)] there is a reason to point to dosbox official page, because dosbox is official one where source can be grabbed. 

And it would be nice if You let this topic die naturally. And start other, fresh one.. 

 

[TrashyMG]

Why, oh why was this thread dug up from the grave?

 

[F_Slim]

Oh yes, please let's passionately fight over the pros and cons of different licenses, and the madness it takes to fulfill each license under any possible circumstances we can think of! (Again!)

 

[Klumpen]

The license wars on these boards are as tough as the ones about religion or eating habits elsewhere.

 

[WizardStan]

To the best of my knowledge no one has killed someone else because they use a license which is incompatible with the one that other person uses. A little bit of bullying maybe, but never to the point of suicide. Not even a slashed tire. If you ask me, these license wars are pretty tame.

 

[_wb_]

That's why a source package repo would be a good idea. It would provide a simple solution to be safe in terms of GPL compliance (and other copyleft licenses) without increasing PND size or requiring lawyers.

I'm not saying a source repo is not a good idea, but I kind of like my solution: I just include the sources in my PND file. Sources compress well so it does not add too much to the size of the PND.

Of course I only include the source that I wrote myself or that I modified - I'm not including all sources of all libraries that I might be using.

By including it in the PND, I make sure that wherever the PND goes, the sources go with them. I think that's the best guarantee that the sources don't get lost. The only downside is a slightly larger PND size, but the difference is usually negligible, especially in things like games where the data (graphics, sound, music) is typically much larger than the program itself (binary + source).