Fix missing GPL licensing. #13
Closed
Conversation
|
added |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
"The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too."
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary
"Can I put the binaries on my Internet server and put the source on a different Internet site?
Yes. Section 6(d) allows this. However, you must provide clear instructions people can follow to obtain the source, and you must take care to make sure that the source remains available for as long as you distribute the object code."
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceAndBinaryOnDifferentSites
"I want to distribute binaries, but distributing complete source is inconvenient. Is it ok if I give users the diffs from the “standard” version along with the binaries?
This is a well-meaning request, but this method of providing the source doesn't really do the job.
A user that wants the source a year from now may be unable to get the proper version from another site at that time. The standard distribution site may have a newer version, but the same diffs probably won't work with that version.
So you need to provide complete sources, not just diffs, with the binaries."
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributingSourceIsInconvenient
https://gpl-violations.org/about/

"Raise public awareness of the infringing use of free software, and thus putting pressure on the infringers."
"What kind of source code do I have to publish under the GNU GPL?
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."
https://gpl-violations.org/faq/sourcecode-faq/
"Complying with open source licenses"
https://buildroot.org/downloads/manual/manual.html#_complying_with_open_source_licenses
"Complying with the Buildroot license"
https://buildroot.org/downloads/manual/manual.html#legal-info-buildroot
https://busybox.net/shame.html
"Previously, this page listed products that included BusyBox but included neither source code nor offer for one. The BusyBox project has decided to not publicly shame companies until Conservancy has an opportunity to talk privately with companies who violate the GPL to convince them to comply with BusyBox's license."
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: