[Bug 45391] winehq.org is distributing compiled LGPL code packages but withholding their sources

[wine-bugs at winehq.org]

https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45391

Olivier F. R. Dierick <o.dierick at piezo-forte.be> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |o.dierick at piezo-forte.be

--- Comment #9 from Olivier F. R. Dierick <o.dierick at piezo-forte.be> ---
(In reply to Austin English from comment #7)
> I think a request to provide source packages is valid (and we could rename
> the bug as such). That doesn't mean there's a license violation, however.
> 
> What do others think?

I think there is no violation of the LGPL and this bug should be marked
INVALID.

I agree with Michael Müller on the extents of the LGPL.

The tool chain used for the making of the modified binaries is irrelevant to
the LGPL license of the modified software. [1]

The packages are binary archive files. They are not object code or executable.
They are not a derivative work of the software they contain and are not subject
to the source code requirement.

As far as I can tell the LGPL makes no provision on the toolchain used to build
the binaries. They can be built with any tools, even non-public proprietary
ones that are available to nobody but the one who build the modified binaries.

The only LGPL requirement is that the source code must be sufficient to build a
binary that can replace the distributed one in term of functionality. That's
all. Compile flags, optimization and such is not covered by the LGPL.

Other people have to deal with the source code themselves.

Since the wine source code is available and it can be used "as is" to build
binaries that can be packaged in .deb files, the requirements of the LGPL are
met, IMO.

Only the copyright holders can act against violations of their copyrights. [2]

As a wine contributor, I know that my code and any modification to it is in the
source tree, and since the winehq.org packages are built from the source tree,
I see no violation of the LGPL.

The OP cannot invoke violation of the LGPL if he's not a copyright holder of a
LGPL'd library.

[1] "Which programs you used to edit the source code, or to compile it, or
study it, or record it, usually makes no difference for issues concerning the
licensing of that source code."
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#NonFreeTools

[2] "Note that the GPL, and other copyleft licenses, are copyright licenses.
This means that only the copyright holders are empowered to act against
violations."
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.en.html

-- 
Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the
above URL to reply.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.