Re: [Audacity-devel] Questions about the license in -help

[Markus M. <me...@me...>]

Am Fre, 2003-05-23 um 09.24 schrieb Dominic Mazzoni:
> > So is it possible that we change the wording in the FAQ (question 1) to
> > incorporate the answer to this question? It could f.e. say that there's
> > no problem with incorporating Audacity in any publication, including
> > magazines, books and the like. It should say that the license is the
> > GPL, but all they have to do to comply with the license is to include
> > not only the binaries, but also the sources with their publication.
> 
> The GPL, section 3c, says that instead of including source code, you
> are allowed to:
> 
> "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."
> 
> Therefore, anyone who distributes Audacity in exactly the form they
> got it from us is already in compliance as long as we are.

Yes, but I doubt a magazine or a book which is sold in stores counts as
"non-commercial".


> Do you think we need to include a snail-mail address anywhere in
> the document to fully comply with the GPL?  Of course if anyone
> really wants the source code on CD-ROM, I'd be happy to burn it
> for them for a small fee, but is it really necessary to include my
> mailing address?

No idea, but most free software projects don't provide one, right?
Anyway, they can get the program via the website, and the source also
from there, so I think it shouldn't be a problem.

> Fine with me.  Let's focus on making sure Audacity complies to
> the best of our ability, possibly by being much more specific in
> the README and maybe also in the program's About dialog text.
> If you're interested in fixing this, that'd be great.

I'll try.


Markus