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

[Dominic M. <do...@mi...>]

Markus Meyer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> on audacity-help there have been some people asking whether they can
> include Audacity on their magazine CD-ROM, book or other publication.
> The usual answer would be "sure, Audacity is free software, just comply
> with the GPL", but actually things are not that easy, because the GPL
> requires that one also gives away the source code or gives a "written
> offer" to provide it on request. Although I don't care too much about
> the violation of my rights or something, I understand that people
> producing magazines and the like want to be sure they don't violate any
> rights. Although IMHO no one here would ever sue them for giving out the
> binary only, it does make a difference legally, and there may be someone
> who buys the magazine, sees his rights violated and ... I mean, it's
> simple not a good situation. Many of those magazine writers etc. also
> have no idea about the difference between "free software" and
> "freeware", and may be alienated by the wording of the GPL and the
> often-not-too-helpful FAQ on the gnu.org website either. I think it
> would be good for us if we try to educate them (and it will also reduce
> traffic on -help ;-)
> 
> 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.

The exact text in Audacity's "README.txt" file is:

"Source code to this program is always available; for more
information visit our website at: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/"

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?

Anyone have a P.O. box they'd be willing to donate for this cause?

> Just nitpicking :-)

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.

After that, if you still think there are things we need to tell
people who wish to distribute Audacity, let's address those in
the FAQ then.

- Dominic

> 
> Markus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: ObjectStore.
> If flattening out C++ or Java code to make your application fit in a
> relational database is painful, don't do it! Check out ObjectStore.
> Now part of Progress Software. http://www.objectstore.net/sourceforge
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-devel mailing list
> Aud...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel