Should I attribute open-source DLLs that I ship?
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
I ship a GPL-licensed exe "Foo" (not mine) with my exe, and with Foo - some DLLs that it uses.
These DLLs are licensed under various open-source licenses.
Should I ship the copyright statements of those DLLs? And the full texts of their licenses?
gpl
asked Nov 23 at 7:49
Stefan Monov
1693
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
I ship a GPL-licensed exe "Foo" (not mine) with my exe, and with Foo - some DLLs that it uses.
These DLLs are licensed under various open-source licenses.
Should I ship the copyright statements of those DLLs? And the full texts of their licenses?
gpl
asked Nov 23 at 7:49
Stefan Monov
1693
3
Does the license of the GPL'ed Foo.exe contain a linking exception? Normally, when you distribute a GPL program, you obligate yourself to disclose all source code. It doesn't matter where the code comes from, so saying "I didn't write those DLLs" is not an excuse. One exception may exist for "system DLLs", but I suspect that doesn't apply in this case.
– Brandin
Nov 23 at 13:10
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
I ship a GPL-licensed exe "Foo" (not mine) with my exe, and with Foo - some DLLs that it uses.
These DLLs are licensed under various open-source licenses.
Should I ship the copyright statements of those DLLs? And the full texts of their licenses?
gpl
asked Nov 23 at 7:49
Stefan Monov
1693
I ship a GPL-licensed exe "Foo" (not mine) with my exe, and with Foo - some DLLs that it uses.
These DLLs are licensed under various open-source licenses.
Should I ship the copyright statements of those DLLs? And the full texts of their licenses?
gpl
gpl
asked Nov 23 at 7:49
Stefan Monov
1693
asked Nov 23 at 7:49
Stefan Monov
1693
asked Nov 23 at 7:49
Stefan Monov
1693
asked Nov 23 at 7:49
Stefan Monov
1693
asked Nov 23 at 7:49
Stefan Monov
1693
1693
3
Does the license of the GPL'ed Foo.exe contain a linking exception? Normally, when you distribute a GPL program, you obligate yourself to disclose all source code. It doesn't matter where the code comes from, so saying "I didn't write those DLLs" is not an excuse. One exception may exist for "system DLLs", but I suspect that doesn't apply in this case.
– Brandin
Nov 23 at 13:10
add a comment |
3
Does the license of the GPL'ed Foo.exe contain a linking exception? Normally, when you distribute a GPL program, you obligate yourself to disclose all source code. It doesn't matter where the code comes from, so saying "I didn't write those DLLs" is not an excuse. One exception may exist for "system DLLs", but I suspect that doesn't apply in this case.
– Brandin
Nov 23 at 13:10
3
3
Does the license of the GPL'ed Foo.exe contain a linking exception? Normally, when you distribute a GPL program, you obligate yourself to disclose all source code. It doesn't matter where the code comes from, so saying "I didn't write those DLLs" is not an excuse. One exception may exist for "system DLLs", but I suspect that doesn't apply in this case.
– Brandin
Nov 23 at 13:10
Does the license of the GPL'ed Foo.exe contain a linking exception? Normally, when you distribute a GPL program, you obligate yourself to disclose all source code. It doesn't matter where the code comes from, so saying "I didn't write those DLLs" is not an excuse. One exception may exist for "system DLLs", but I suspect that doesn't apply in this case.
– Brandin
Nov 23 at 13:10
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
12
down vote
When redistributing GPL-licensed binaries, you must reproduce each copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty and ship the full text of the license (see section 1 of the GPLv2). In addition, you have to (quoting section 3):
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
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,
c) 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.)
Commercial distributions typically choose option b. For the GPLv3, similar terms apply.
Other terms apply for other open-source licenses, but you typically have to ship with all copyright notices and license texts.
answered Nov 23 at 12:27
nwellnhof
2213
As you can see the question pertains to binary subcomponents and their various licenses. Here is an example. Sometimes I deploy apps including a binary subcomponent which is licensed as basically this: opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause As you can see, clause 2 applies, so the license for that component gets included in the deployment bundle.
– Richard Barber
Nov 25 at 13:30
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "619"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7645%2fshould-i-attribute-open-source-dlls-that-i-ship%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
12
down vote
When redistributing GPL-licensed binaries, you must reproduce each copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty and ship the full text of the license (see section 1 of the GPLv2). In addition, you have to (quoting section 3):
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
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,
c) 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.)
Commercial distributions typically choose option b. For the GPLv3, similar terms apply.
Other terms apply for other open-source licenses, but you typically have to ship with all copyright notices and license texts.
answered Nov 23 at 12:27
nwellnhof
2213
As you can see the question pertains to binary subcomponents and their various licenses. Here is an example. Sometimes I deploy apps including a binary subcomponent which is licensed as basically this: opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause As you can see, clause 2 applies, so the license for that component gets included in the deployment bundle.
– Richard Barber
Nov 25 at 13:30
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
When redistributing GPL-licensed binaries, you must reproduce each copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty and ship the full text of the license (see section 1 of the GPLv2). In addition, you have to (quoting section 3):
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
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,
c) 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.)
Commercial distributions typically choose option b. For the GPLv3, similar terms apply.
Other terms apply for other open-source licenses, but you typically have to ship with all copyright notices and license texts.
answered Nov 23 at 12:27
nwellnhof
2213
As you can see the question pertains to binary subcomponents and their various licenses. Here is an example. Sometimes I deploy apps including a binary subcomponent which is licensed as basically this: opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause As you can see, clause 2 applies, so the license for that component gets included in the deployment bundle.
– Richard Barber
Nov 25 at 13:30
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
up vote
12
down vote
When redistributing GPL-licensed binaries, you must reproduce each copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty and ship the full text of the license (see section 1 of the GPLv2). In addition, you have to (quoting section 3):
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
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,
c) 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.)
Commercial distributions typically choose option b. For the GPLv3, similar terms apply.
Other terms apply for other open-source licenses, but you typically have to ship with all copyright notices and license texts.
answered Nov 23 at 12:27
nwellnhof
2213
When redistributing GPL-licensed binaries, you must reproduce each copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty and ship the full text of the license (see section 1 of the GPLv2). In addition, you have to (quoting section 3):
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
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,
c) 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.)
Commercial distributions typically choose option b. For the GPLv3, similar terms apply.
Other terms apply for other open-source licenses, but you typically have to ship with all copyright notices and license texts.
answered Nov 23 at 12:27
nwellnhof
2213
answered Nov 23 at 12:27
nwellnhof
2213
answered Nov 23 at 12:27
nwellnhof
2213
answered Nov 23 at 12:27
nwellnhof
2213
2213
As you can see the question pertains to binary subcomponents and their various licenses. Here is an example. Sometimes I deploy apps including a binary subcomponent which is licensed as basically this: opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause As you can see, clause 2 applies, so the license for that component gets included in the deployment bundle.
– Richard Barber
Nov 25 at 13:30
add a comment |
As you can see the question pertains to binary subcomponents and their various licenses. Here is an example. Sometimes I deploy apps including a binary subcomponent which is licensed as basically this: opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause As you can see, clause 2 applies, so the license for that component gets included in the deployment bundle.
– Richard Barber
Nov 25 at 13:30
As you can see the question pertains to binary subcomponents and their various licenses. Here is an example. Sometimes I deploy apps including a binary subcomponent which is licensed as basically this: opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause As you can see, clause 2 applies, so the license for that component gets included in the deployment bundle.
– Richard Barber
Nov 25 at 13:30
As you can see the question pertains to binary subcomponents and their various licenses. Here is an example. Sometimes I deploy apps including a binary subcomponent which is licensed as basically this: opensource.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause As you can see, clause 2 applies, so the license for that component gets included in the deployment bundle.
– Richard Barber
Nov 25 at 13:30
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Open Source Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7645%2fshould-i-attribute-open-source-dlls-that-i-ship%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
3
Does the license of the GPL'ed Foo.exe contain a linking exception? Normally, when you distribute a GPL program, you obligate yourself to disclose all source code. It doesn't matter where the code comes from, so saying "I didn't write those DLLs" is not an excuse. One exception may exist for "system DLLs", but I suspect that doesn't apply in this case.
– Brandin
Nov 23 at 13:10