---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Roy Stogner <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Libmesh-devel] Compiler Fiasco Upate
To: Derek Gaston <email@example.com
Cc: Cody Permann <firstname.lastname@example.org
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012, Derek Gaston wrote:
_We_ don't have to distribute "the preferred form" if we don't make
modifications to it (which we're not). It's enough just to say that
we're using fparser and that the source is available... which it is:
Correct, and you emphasized the correct word: _We_. Our LGPL doesn't
care what BSD-based binary blobs get tacked on.
But if users wanted to link a GPL code with libMesh and redistribute,
they would either have to get the development fparser themselves or
violate that other code's license. We wouldn't be committing any
violations ourselves, but we'd be making it harder for our users
to avoid doing so.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with distributing binary versions
of GPL/LGPL software as long as the source is available _somewhere_.
This is a popular enough misconception to have made the FAQ.
But Cody's patch can do both... so if there's not a problem with his patch... then let's just use that.
Agreed; I certainly didn't see any problems with it.
Alright - I'll commit if the server ever comes back online.