Re: Gitbox

> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Chris Perkins <cperkins@medialab.com> wrote:
>> Let's look at this at a slighty different way. Let's say someone writes
>> a GUI wrapper for Git, bundles it with Git, and then offers for sale a
>> new proprietary SVC system. They list off all the wonderful features
>> that it has.  On the back page of their website is a small 'Licenses'
>> disclosure and the source code to Git comes with the download buried in
>> a subdirectory.  None of the users realize the software is using Git.
>>
>> Is that a violation of the GPL? I would say that it absolutely is.
> 
> It absolutely is not. Lots of companies do this, and it is perfectly
> kosher -- either bundle the src somewhere or offer a link to download
> the source somewhere.
> 
> While IANAL, and specifically not _your_ lawyer, I have been in this
> field for >10 years, and studied law @ masters level on software
> licensing. You are reading the GPL wrong, and you're not aware of
> widespread industry practices around it.
> 
> Anyone who is curious about this gitbox thing, and interested in
> *facts* instead of fiction, could advance our knowledge with a simple
> procedure:
> 
>  - Download the "free" version (or payfor the paid version!). It's a
> zipfile, no need to hurt any Macs.
> 
>  - See if it includes the src or a link to download the src -- it will
> probably be in a corner of the documentation or license. Maybe there's
> an offer to provide the src in a different way, but a download link is
> the usual trick.
> 
>  - Does the link work? Can you effectively get the src?
> 
>  - Does the src match the binaries you got?