Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:
In article <cal259$jcl$1@pump1.york.ac.uk>,
Chris Jefferson <caj@cs.york.ac.uk> wrote:
Brian Gough wrote:
Chris Jefferson <caj@cs.york.ac.uk> writes:
Also, let me point out that (I hope) I'm not a troll. I've just
been working on a project with some friends and we are now
considering what licence to release it under. I'd quite like the
GPL, but a number of my friends would perfer a "you can read the
code, but you can't distribute altered versions" style licence.
Both the scenarios you suggest would allow to you make a legal case
against someone.
Thanks.. just a couple more questions :)
If we put the binary on the website, I get the feeling we have to
promise to provide the source FOREVER to anyone who gets a copy of the
binary. Surely we don't have to give the source away forever? can we
offer the source to download next to the binary and tell people to
download both then claim they had the opportunity to get the source and
if the didn't take it, tough?
I think putting both binary and source next to each other on a
distribution site is generally considered to meet the requirement to
"accompany [the binary form] with the ... source code" in section 3a of
the GPL.
Also, even if it didn't, where did you get the idea that you have to
provide source code forever? Section 3b specifically says "Accompany it
with a written offer, valid for at least three years...." You could
make it valid forever if you wanted, but you're only required to support
3 years.
And only if you have not met 3a instead. If you always put up binary
and source code together up, according to 3a, nobody can blame you if
you take them down together again.