| 1 |
On Thursday 01 March 2012 14:05:36 Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ed W wrote: |
| 3 |
> > My understanding is that for a GPL licence one should provide a |
| 4 |
> > copy of these patches in the "code dump", not just an http link? |
| 5 |
> > Is that your understanding? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I think your understanding is incomplete, and I recommend that you |
| 8 |
> read through the license again. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> There isn't just a single way to provide the source, but yes, if you |
| 11 |
> have downloaded and included a patch in your binary, then you have to |
| 12 |
> provide that patch yourself, because if you refer to someone else and |
| 13 |
> they stop providing the patch you would no longer be in compliance. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Peter's understanding seems to match my own. pointing someone to a URL that |
| 16 |
provides the source satisfies the GPL requirements. obviously if the linked |
| 17 |
source is incomplete or outdated, that's another matter, but if the full |
| 18 |
source is there, then the obligations have been met. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
alternatively, you could create a bundle of all the sources and provide it |
| 21 |
directly. companies tend to do this more because they modify the releases |
| 22 |
directly rather than a cleaner build approach. |
| 23 |
-mike |
Archives