[Bf-committers] License for the binary distro

[Alistair Riddoch]

--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Feb 08, 2003 at 06:34:40PM +0100, Max Gilead wrote:
> Hello!
>=20
> I'd like to point that AFAIK below point is incorrect:
>=20
> >- The binary distribution doesn't have to include the GPL license text
>=20
> GPL section 3:
>=20
> "3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> Sections 1 and 2 above... (cut)"
>=20
> while section 1 states that:
>=20
> "...(cut) provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on=20
> each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty;=20
> keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the=20
> absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a=
=20
> copy of this License along with the Program. (cut)"
>=20
> Which means that you HAVE to distribute entire GPL with both source and=
=20
> binary and have to provide appropriate copyright and disclaimer notices.
>=20
>=20
> And, yes, IANAL and I might have just misunderstood all of this.
>=20

I have read over the license carefully, and I agree with Max's
analysis. You do need to provide a copy of the GPL with the binary,
though the user is not required to agree to the license if they
just want to run the software.

The other two points in Ton's mail look fine.

Al
--=20
Alistair Riddoch
alriddoch@zepler.org
http://zepler.org/~alriddoch/

--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE+RUGQmpFnJxPk53QRArNiAKChlE1vS6dwfxvF6i1l+xyyJ1sQKgCguYjy
6ccwyUjUw++OOarYeCEeV0s=
=AykW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--8t9RHnE3ZwKMSgU+--