Google is Violating LGPL Source Code

[Hardy, Allan]

Hi Thomas

I don't see that as a wiseass question at all.  Im happy to share
basically what I feel is the policy/practice for a re-distributor to be
compliant if LGPL Binaries are part of the distribution

There are two main scenarios, one where I directly acquire and use the
LGPL product and one where the LGPL is bundled into something a
supplier/sub contractor provides to me.

Directly Acquired
Basically follow 6a, get the source and include it with the
shipment/distribution.
Making offers and standing up websites is not a practical option.  
One golden rule - always ship source with GPL/LGPL binary distributions


Indirectly Acquired
For example a commercial product that has bundled in LGPL/GPL.  I find
that the majority of folks do not have their act together, they don't
offer source on their website, many don't even know they have
obligations.  So in some way I'm educating them, which is why I'd rather
find out I am wrong as noted in the other posts

First we contractually require the vendor to provide us the source, so
we can be compliant.

As a less desired course, if the vendor has the source on their website,
we will add in contract terms that they will offer the source on our
behalf, for 3 years, etc etc.  Then we pass along this website/offer
when we redistribute

Lastly, if we cant negotiate either of the above we will require them to
tell us the exact version they use and out guys will go get source
independently and put it in the package/distro.  While I know it means
the vendor is not compliant themselves, I cant fix everyone and need to
make sure I am compliant


Does that help explain?

Allan

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Charron [mailto:twaffle at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 4:08 PM
To: Hardy, Allan
Cc: mp; legal at lists.gpl-violations.org
Subject: Re: Google is Violating LGPL Source Code

On 4/7/09, Hardy, Allan <allan.hardy at lmco.com> wrote:
> I was looking for a way to fulfill my obligations to release source
code when I redistribute LGPL binaries.
> I found out there were no LGPL binaries and there is no issue

  Not to sound like a wiseass or anything, but based on your own
initial complaints, you're going to have to host the source yourself
for any LGPL components.

  So how exactly would you be covering anything by ensuring Google has
released them to *you*.

-- 
-- Thomas