| The intent of the GPL in this matter (according to the FSF) is explained by
these two FAQ entries:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites
While this covers the GPL, I believe the LGPL is similar in this regard.
One onerous aspect of this requirement for us is that each of us is
potentially using a different version of some of the libraries to build our
Csound binaries. In fact, these requirements seem a little onerous to me in
general for a project like Csound that has so many dependencies but does not
have the resources of a OS distribution. (eg. if we distribute a copy of
Jack or ALSA or statically link the GNU LibC library to make sure a
compatible version is available, we probably should distribute those sources
too). This makes distributing complex projects very impractical for anyone
but a Linux distro or something like Planet CCRMA or Darwin Ports.
Nevertheless, these are the requirements of the licenses ...
Anthony
victor wrote on 4/18/08 4:29 PM:
> I think if the GPL sources have not been modified (by for instance adding
> them
> to other code and then building the binaries of the compound code) and are
> available
> elsewhere, there is no need for this.
>
>> (1) The main reason I include these is that my understanding of the LGPL
>> and
>> GPL licenses is that offering the source code for download is required if
>> we
>> are distributing library binaries that we compiled ourselves.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net |