Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 2nd Jul 2007 22:30 UTC
Legal The issue between WINE and Parallels has been solved. "On July 2nd, Parallels sent the modified sources to me (Stefan Dosinger). I looked at them, and they are functionally mostly unmodified, except of some changes to get wined3d to compile on Windows(nameless unions, and similar things). What is yet to be verified is if these are the sources used to build the libs shipped in Parallels Desktop for Mac."
Thread beginning with comment 252788
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: issue or no issue ?
by Theophilos on Wed 4th Jul 2007 00:01 UTC in reply to "RE: issue or no issue ?"
Member since:

Same location? Is that an LGPL-only requirement?

As far as I know, both GPL and LGPL only require that whoever provides a binary also has to provide the source for the derived version. This also means that Parallel can't just get into the clear just by linking to a source download on the WINE project page, even if the lib was unmodified. It's their responsibility; not a shared responsibility.

However, they are not required to offer a link either. They can choose to mail it if they want. The license just requires that they make it available for three years, that they cannot charge you more than it costs them to send it to you (they can charge you say ... $2 for the CD, but they can't charge you $50 for the CD), and that the source be in (to poorly paraphrase) a commonly readable state. So a binary decompilation doesn't count for the winelib and I doubt they could do a search/replace to obfuscate the variable and function names, either.

The reason downloads are made available by most projects is because it's easier than burning up a bunch of CDs for everyone (even if they get paid for it).


A little off-topic. I always thought it was amusing that seeders on torrents are giving you binaries, but they don't always give you sources. Funny how quick new technologies seem to make simple concepts like distribution of GPLed code seem antiquated. After all, when was the last time you got the source code from a project under the stipulations of the GPL/LGPL in the mail? It was a lot more common not too long ago.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: issue or no issue ?
by samkass on Wed 4th Jul 2007 03:02 in reply to "RE[2]: issue or no issue ?"
samkass Member since:

No, you're not required to distribute it from the same location by the LGPL-- the previous poster is incorrect. The LGPL section 4 states that a binary redistribution of the library must include the source. But section 6 says that a program that uses the library may opt to provide the source for the library upon request (section 6c of LGPL 2.1: "Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution.")

What's more, the LGPL 2.1 doesn't explicitly state how much of a delay from the request of the source code under section 6c and delivery is acceptable. I believe under US law it's difficult to prosecute anyone for failure to deliver something less than 8 weeks after ordering something, especially when a delivery date was never promised.

So I don't think you can even say that Parallels was ever legally out of compliance with the LGPL, although they were definitely in danger of doing so.

Reply Parent Score: 1