• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Implemented License information of files (GPL etc.)

Luxus

Well-known member
#1
It would be good if you have the possibilty of adding license informations to the file. Many applications are GPL licensed for instance and if you want to upload GPL applications and you are not the copyright holder you must either include full sources in the file (not recommended for large applications) or link to a place where people can obtain the sources, like SVNs.

This is how it could look like:
license.png
 

MagnusB

Well-known member
#2
I would like to see license information added, though this:
Many applications are GPL licensed for instance and if you want to upload GPL applications and you are not the copyright holder you must either include full sources in the file (not recommended for large applications) or link to a place where people can obtain the sources, like SVNs.
You don't have to have the source publicly available, you only have to make it available upon request, and you can also take a fee for the source code. I don't see a need for forcing such a link, as the author have to produce the source code upon request.
 

Luxus

Well-known member
#3
I would like to see license information added, though this:

You don't have to have the source publicly available, you only have to make it available upon request, and you can also take a fee for the source code. I don't see a need for forcing such a link, as the author have to produce the source code upon request.
Well, I don't want this thread to become a GPL debate thread, but no, providing source on user's request is not good enough as people could pretend to never recieved a request or simply vanish from the internet at any time. Third-party distributed GPL apps that are available in public but without a way of getting the source are illegal.
 

MagnusB

Well-known member
#4
Well, I don't want this thread to become a GPL debate thread, but no, providing source on user's request is not good enough as people could pretend to never recieved a request or simply vanish from the internet at any time. Third-party distributed GPL apps that are available in public but without a way of getting the source are illegal.
Not to stretch out the debate, but as I said, you are not required to have the source publicly available, you need to supply it on request. If any re distributor fails to do so, it is not illegal, they are just not in compliance with the license. The one who holds the copyright must then decide whether or not to take action. It is not illegal, it is more like a breach of contract. Also, for most web applications the distributed package usually is the source as well, unless it is encrypted in some way.
 

Luxus

Well-known member
#5
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
If the distributor dies, how should people get the source code? Thus source must be available to the public without the need of requesting it.

I experienced this first-hand myself. A programmer released a tool that uses third-party GPL libraries under the GPL license and said that he provides the source on user's request, but he never actually responded to the requests, mine included. This was 2 years ago and still no source from this person.
 

MagnusB

Well-known member
#6
If the distributor dies, how should people get the source code? Thus source must be available to the public without the need of requesting it.
Then he is no longer accountable for any breach of license. Again, there is no specific requirement in GPLv2 (or 3 as far as I can see) that specifically demands the source to be publicly available, in fact, there is one part in GPL V3 that specify that you can demand a fee for the source code. Mepis did this a few years ago, and only shipped source code out by CD.

I experienced this first-hand myself. A programmer released a tool that uses third-party GPL libraries under the GPL license and said that he provides the source on user's request, but he never actually responded to the requests, mine included. This was 2 years ago and still no source from this person.
Then you should have reported him to the copyright holder, as they are the only one that can take action. Also, and someone correct me if I am reading this wrong, but for web scripts the script itself is the source:
The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source form of a work.
 

Luxus

Well-known member
#7
Then he is no longer accountable for any breach of license.
Which won't change the simple fact that all his apps would become illegal as there is no way to get the sources.
Again, there is no specific requirement in GPLv2 (or 3 as far as I can see) that specifically demands the source to be publicly available, in fact, there is one part in GPL V3 that specify that you can demand a fee for the source code. Mepis did this a few years ago, and only shipped source code out by CD
Besides the hash tag to the above FAQ that is #GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic, by logic is it naturally for the source being available in public without user's request. The GPL allows you to sell GPL software, but if you distribute any GPL software, either paid of free, you must provide access to the source code without the need for user's request as well.


Then you should have reported him to the copyright holder, as they are the only one that can take action.
They know, but he wasn't distributing his app on a public SVN like Google Code.
Also, and someone correct me if I am reading this wrong, but for web scripts the script itself is the source:
I wasn't talking about web scripts, but compiled binaries.