Approval for Introducing Your Software in Japanese PC magazine

Mike or Penny Novack stepbystepfarm at
Sun Apr 28 08:24:46 EDT 2013

>>The rules say that you have to distribute all of the source code, but I think that it's become
>>pretty common to rely on the fact that the sources are all readily available via the net. You'll
>>probably want to get an OK from your lawyers.
>The rules say that if you make changes to the code, you must make those changes to the source available under the same license.
>If you don't make changes to the code, for example you just publish the binaries as provided, then just link back to the source here.
>The source doesn't need to be on the same physical medium, but does need to be available. An example might be binaries on an operating system CD, with source available via the operating system website.
Except technically it the source code doesn't have to be available 
somewhere. I know many projects figure "let them seek out and download" 
BUT the language really is for good copy on medium. Remember, while 
perhaps most people live where they have broadband right in their homes 
most places do not (think land area, not people density). When I need 
something as large as operating system software that means paying a 
download service to get it burned to medium for me. And BTW, the "free 
software" project WOULD be allowed to charge the "usual and customary" 
amount for doing just that. So not a violation of the license to say 
"send us five bucks and we give you the source code on medium". The 
software itself might be provided only that way too; they ARE allowed to 
charge for that. They do NOT have to provide a free as in free beer 
download from a website because the license language was developed well 
before those days. By the language of the license you don't necessarily 
have to put the source on the same medium but have to be willing to 
produce medium with the source upon request so unless no space on the 
medium, why not put it there.

On the first part -- that is NOT so simple because there are strongly 
differing interpretations to what is meant by "make changes to the 
code". New code could UTILIZE (make calls of) existing binaries without 
actually changing them. New code (or other material) could serve 
functions related to what some existing binary does. In other words, the 
extent to which "non-free" work may legitimately utilize free software 
without being captured is a matter of much dispute.


More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list