[ptx] hugin dependancies & sources for panorama-tools-nonfree

[JD Smith]

On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 23:06 +0100, Edouard Gomez wrote:
> David Grant (david.grant at telus.net) wrote:
> > I was kind of thinking, but couldn't put that all together and explain 
> > it like you did.
> > So had he ever leaked out some source, then he would be screwed, and 
> > that source would be GPL. But as it stands he never relased any to begin 
> > with, for the non libpano12 stuff, so, he's free to do as he pleases and 
> > change the license. As long as he didn't use any GPL stuff written by 
> > other people within his code, that is.
> 
> The  GPL  isn't  about  licensing  sources only,  it's  about  licensing
> software. If a software is GPL licensed then users who got a copy of the
> software are  in right to  ask for the  sources to the  distributor. The
> distributor  is to  provide (freely  of for  a fee)  the sources  of the
> compiled program.  That's the way the  GPL works, and the  fact he never
> released  sources is  not an  argument that  could help  him  hiding the
> sources  forever,  he's  bound  by   the  GPL  to  give  access  to  the
> sources...
> 
> So  in conclusion,  everyone who  downloaded the  version  from original
> author is in right to ask for sources. Up to the original author to give
> the source for free or for a fee (the media cost), but the GPL is clear,
> sources must be available.
> 
> See:
> Section 3:
> [...]
>     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,

I agree with all of this.  The question is, when does a piece of
software come to be licensed under the GPL?  When it's author mentions
his or her plan to do so?  If it appears alongside other programs which
have been distributed under the GPL?  If the license or a reference to
the license is included in the binary software application, perhaps in
an "About this software" dialog, or an accompanying text file?  

Whenever source code is included or downloaded with software with the
recommended GPL header and COPYING file, it's fairly unambiguous that it
has been distributed with that license.  Otherwsie, the sufficient
criteria for enacting a license are less than clear. 

I, and many others no doubt, have asked Dr. Dersch for the source, and
received no response.

JD