| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
object code distribution requirements in GPLv2 and GPLv3object code distribution requirements in GPLv2 and GPLv3Posted Jul 12, 2007 3:23 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: object code distribution requirements in GPLv2 and GPLv3 by sepreece Parent article: An update on Yoggie GPL compliance
according to the FSF if you provide GPL software to a third party that you got from someone else, _you_ are the one responsible for providing the source code, you can't just point at the upstream provider.
this would imply that as the upstream provider you aren't required to provide source to people who get the binaries from someone else, that someone else must provide them.
if you are going to be picky about the requirements then you need to be evenly picky otherwise you're just reading it to favor your point of view.
(Log in to post comments)
object code distribution requirements in GPLv2 and GPLv3 Posted Jul 12, 2007 8:21 UTC (Thu) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link] Do you have a reference to where the FSF said that? I suspect they'retalking about something else, namely that you cannot pass along a 3(b) offer if you didn't get one in the first place.
For example, if you redistribute binaries from the Debian archives, then
That's different from the case under discussion, where the distributor is
|
|
||||||||||||