Okay, after reading most of this thread, and deciding this topic needs to
end, I’ve done some reading of the LGPL 2.1:
Section 4 concerns distribution of the library itself, paragraph two,
which has been quoted elsewhere, is relevant:
If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy
from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the
source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to
distribute the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
This seems to indicate that distributing a binary of the library does
require that the source be available from the same location as the
binaries. Section 6 concerns distribution of binaries and things which
use the library. It offers several alternatives, here are the relevant
ones:
a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding
machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever
changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under
Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked
with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that
uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the
user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified
executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood
that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the
Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application
to use the modified definitions.)
b) Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the
Library. A suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a
copy of the library already present on the user's computer system,
rather than copying library functions into the executable, and (2)
will operate properly with a modified version of the library, if
the user installs one, as long as the modified version is
interface-compatible with the version that the work was made with.
c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least
three years, to give the same user the materials specified in
Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of
performing this distribution.
d) If distribution of the work is made by offering access to copy
from a designated place, offer equivalent access to copy the above
specified materials from the same place.
Section 6(a) does not apply to the traditional methods for distributing
SDL, unless you consider the readme file such an offer to satisfy 6©.
6(b) generally assumes the library is distributed seperately (and
therefore other distribution terms apply from section 4.) 6(d) is the
only one of these options which applies to distribution of the shared lib
together with the binary, with source code available seperately, and it is
clear as to what it requires.
Since no other section grants additional permissions, the source code must
be available on the same place as the binary. The exact definition of
place is not clear, but I would argue same web or ftp is sufficient to
satisfy this requirement. I’ll reiterate my suggestion that this is
probably a good idea for technical reasons, though I was clearly wrong
before when I said there was no legal requirement to do so.
(Here’s hoping this thread stops growing fast…)–
Joseph Carter Hey, that’s MY freak show!
but one sort per tab and none per list is arguably better than
O(n + n2) per tab and O(n2) per list.
OMG, someone shoot me.
?
I can’t believe I just used the big goose-egg to explain why my
way is probably best in the long run.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed…
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 273 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: http://lists.libsdl.org/pipermail/sdl-libsdl.org/attachments/20020628/4b693f10/attachment.pgp
