3 ms·

What is viral about using a GPLd binary executable that doesn’t link? On the whole, I am firmly against Open Source and would generally go with Source Availabl

by wredue 3y ago

What is viral about using a GPLd binary executable that doesn’t link? On the whole, I am firmly against Open Source and would generally go with Source Available, but this seems like FUD.

bayindirh 3y ago
Note: Assuming that you're shipping a product which contains coreutils, regardless of it's modified or not. First, you need to ship the source of that GPLd binary with the binary itself. Second, no derivative of that source code (and the binary as a result) can have a different license unless you're the copyright holder on that source code. On the whole, I am firmly against Open Source and always go with Free Software, but this seems like incomplete knowledge. edit: Added the "Note" section in the beginning. There was confusion it seems.
- wredue 3y ago
  Sorry dude, but simply using pre-compiled coreutils in your org doesn’t force you to ship the code, nor does it pose any licensing issues. If you link, or modify the code, then you have some license issues. FUD.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    Sorry dude, but assuming that you ship a product using a precompiled GNU coreutils, you're operating under GPL. The license states the following[0]: 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 provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) If you're using it under your organization, you don't need to ship anything, but if you're shipping something with it, then you must. The same applies if you're hosting a SaaS with AGPL license. Sorry, but I'm too old for this FUD thing. I neither have the motivation, nor the desire, nor the reason to do it. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
    - russdill 3y ago
      He said if you use it within your org, not if you ship it. Hell, you can even modify coreutils to whatever the hell you want. So long as you aren't distributing the binary, you are under no obligation to provide source or a source offer.
      - bayindirh 3y ago
        I think I have addressed that in the comment you just answered. There was a misunderstanding, and I tried to fix it. I again edited the comment which lead to the confusion.
- russdill 3y ago
  You absolutely do not need to ship the source code with the binary. The source offer is sufficient and the most common way of meeting the license obligation.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    > The source offer is sufficient and the most common way of meeting the license obligation. Yes, you're right. And you play e-mail ping-pong while trying to find the correct person in most cases. IIRC Linksys got into "warmer than usual" water because of not honoring the offer.

by wredue 3y ago

What is viral about using a GPLd binary executable that doesn’t link? On the whole, I am firmly against Open Source and would generally go with Source Available, but this seems like FUD.

bayindirh 3y ago

Note: Assuming that you're shipping a product which contains coreutils, regardless of it's modified or not. First, you need to ship the source of that GPLd binary with the binary itself. Second, no derivative of that source code (and the binary as a result) can have a different license unless you're the copyright holder on that source code. On the whole, I am firmly against Open Source and always go with Free Software, but this seems like incomplete knowledge. edit: Added the "Note" section in the beginning. There was confusion it seems.

wredue 3y ago
Sorry dude, but simply using pre-compiled coreutils in your org doesn’t force you to ship the code, nor does it pose any licensing issues. If you link, or modify the code, then you have some license issues. FUD.
- bayindirh 3y ago
  Sorry dude, but assuming that you ship a product using a precompiled GNU coreutils, you're operating under GPL. The license states the following[0]: 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 provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) If you're using it under your organization, you don't need to ship anything, but if you're shipping something with it, then you must. The same applies if you're hosting a SaaS with AGPL license. Sorry, but I'm too old for this FUD thing. I neither have the motivation, nor the desire, nor the reason to do it. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
  - russdill 3y ago
    He said if you use it within your org, not if you ship it. Hell, you can even modify coreutils to whatever the hell you want. So long as you aren't distributing the binary, you are under no obligation to provide source or a source offer.
    - bayindirh 3y ago
      I think I have addressed that in the comment you just answered. There was a misunderstanding, and I tried to fix it. I again edited the comment which lead to the confusion.
russdill 3y ago
You absolutely do not need to ship the source code with the binary. The source offer is sufficient and the most common way of meeting the license obligation.
- bayindirh 3y ago
  > The source offer is sufficient and the most common way of meeting the license obligation. Yes, you're right. And you play e-mail ping-pong while trying to find the correct person in most cases. IIRC Linksys got into "warmer than usual" water because of not honoring the offer.