80

There are no guarantees that the uploaded artefacts match the source code in the repository. That something is on GitHub does not mean that it can be trusted. You need to also trust the maintainers of that repository.


17

The naive answer is, of course, to build it yourself and verify that your built binary is identical to the binary supplied by the other party. So much for the theory. In practice, this can be tremendously difficult, because a body of source code can be validly compiled into an unbounded number of valid binaries, influenced by what compiler you're using, ...


16

The MIT license doesn't require source code to be published. It only requires that the license notice is kept intact. MIT-licensed binaries without source code are rare – no source kinda defeats the purpose of open source – but it's also not the first time I've heard about this construction. Even for licenses like the GPL that do require source code, it's ...


11

The GPL, version 3, has the following to say about distributing modified copies of a covered program in a form other than source code: Section 6: You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ...


8

This is categorically fine under the MIT license (as long as you follow basic attribution and license-preservation requirements), since the MIT license allows you to distribute the work (and modified forms) in binary-only format if you wish. If the binary happens also to produce source code, that's fine too, but it doesn't have to do so. For the GPL, this ...


8

You are required to attribute the authors of any libraries you use, regardless of whether this is explicitly required by the libraries' licenses. The BSD license only mentions a suggested place for this attribution. In general, wherever you assert your copyright of the software, you should also mention that you include software from other copyright holders. ...


8

Trichoplax suggested a number of advantages to providing binaries, but no disadvantages. Clearly, the largest advantage to providing binaries is the high probability that this will increase the size of the user-base. The type of person who visits this site is technically very savvy, most likely with programming experience, and likely to prefer to download ...


8

There are several reasons to provide binaries, some stronger than others: First a passive reason - "Why not?" : if you have any users on a given target platform, the code will need to be tested on that platform, which requires creating binaries. So you will already have the binaries. Now active reasons: Convenience: if you make it easier for people to use ...


6

This will be partly down to interpretation, and IANAL. However this is how I'd read it: that you can indeed distribute in the way you have described, because all you're doing is executing and reading the output. I wouldn't consider this dynamically linked - you're not calling functions back and forth, you're essentially integrating "at arms length". The ...


6

Most of the binary blobs in Linux are in device drivers, and most of those are in WiFi drivers. Their function is to be the operating code for the hardware on the device; unless they're loaded when the hardware is initialised, the hardware will not function. It is unfortunate that WiFi manufacturers, in particular, have chosen this method of operation; but ...


5

Generally, it's handled by the distro's package management utility. For example, if I examine the contents of postgresql-libs on my desktop (Fedora 28), I find that: [me@risby personal]$ rpm -ql postgresql-libs [...] /usr/lib64/libpq.so.5 /usr/lib64/libpq.so.5.10 /usr/lib64/pgsql /usr/share/doc/postgresql-libs /usr/share/doc/postgresql-libs/COPYRIGHT [...] ...


5

No, you do not need to change the license of your dll and you do not need to publish any source code. In contrast to a strong copyleft, non-permissive license like the GPL the BSD licenses are instead non-copyleft and permissive. Copyleft basically means that any modifications you make to a piece of copyleft-licensed software have to be released under the ...


5

The source code itself is available here: https://android.googlesource.com/platform/sdk/+/master/ There is Android Rebuilds project which provides binaries built from this source code without non-free EULA: https://android-rebuilds.beuc.net/


5

It’s not possible to validate it 100% but you can get close. As a prerequisite, the app needs to support reproducible builds. That means you need the information how to compile and package the target app exactly the same way the maintainer did, including compiler parameters. For simple apps, the answer given by @filip is true. You compile the app and hash (...


5

Yes, you can change both the name of the project and the name of the executable. The 3-clause BSD license gives you permission to make changes to the project and that includes the changes you want to make. Additionally, if you fork a project with the intention of maintaining it as a separate, independent project, then it is recommended to change the ...


5

There are some legal implications for using a GPLv2 licensed driver, but they are not very onerous. The main requirement is that you inform your customers about the fact that GPLv2 licensed software is being used, tell them which software it is, tell them where to obtain the sources for the exact version you are distributing (you may have to host them ...


5

As long as the binary is under an open source license, you would have rights to disassemble it and distribute the results (optionally modified). However, with a permissive license like BSD or MIT/X11, people who use your work have no obligation to license their modifications under that same license. With a copyleft license like the GPL, people can distribute ...


4

Generally, the output of a piece of software is not covered by the piece of software's licence, because the output is not a derivative work of the piece of software. Using a GPL-covered program to upload a firmware blob no more forces the firmware blob to be GPL'ed than using a GPL-covered file transfer program to upload your photograph requires freely-...


4

Pandoc is available under the terms of the GPL version 2 or greater so the different versions are not relevant: you can just use the terms of the GPLv3. Even then, bundling a GPLv2 program with a GPLv3 project is fine as long as that falls under “mere aggregation”. Yes, you can of course bundle the Pandoc binaries with you app. The same rules as for ...


4

Well, without source code it isn't open source. The availability of source code allows for others to change the code, one of the main reasons to have open source in the first place. Without source code it isn't longer possible. If you only intend to use the software, the differences between using precompiled binaries and compiling yourself are: You can ...


4

Yes you can; you are the copyright holder so you can apply whatever license you want. However, I recommend that you avoid the licenses designed for source code (such as GPL, BSD and so on) and choose a more general-purpose license. The Creative Commons licenses are an excellent choice; they have been used for books, photographs, music, movies and many more ...


4

As far as copyright law is concerned, source code and object code (i.e. the compiled program) are equivalent. So even if a license talks about one and not the other, or only mentions "software", the same protections apply to both. Often the license will mention both. For example, GPL has sections defining "source code" and "object code", because one of its ...


4

... I upload a GPL binary to google drive and then provide a link for everyone ... You are the distributor here, Not Google. Also Google's Terms and conditions mentions scenarios like this, and here's an excerpt. We do not claim ownership in any of your content, including any text, data, information, and files that you upload, share, or store in ...


3

CC BY-NC is not a permissive license. Neither the FSF nor the OSI approved it, so it’s not a free software license nor an open source license. The reason is the "NC" part: the licensed work may not be used for commercial purposes. CC BY-NC and the other CC licenses aren’t intended for code, so they don’t clarify code-related aspects. This means there is no ...


3

If you hex-edit the binary then the original source becomes less relevant and you have effectively made the new binary "the preferred form of the work for making modifications". Certainly if I wanted to make further changes to your binary I would prefer to hex-edit the binary, not edit the original sources. Hence the new binary now is the source code. It ...


3

Does the fact that I sign and distribute runtime & SDK used to write the component oblige me to change the component's license to MIT / Apache2? No, software under Apache 2 or MIT/Expat/X11 licenses may be used within software under virtually any license. These are "permissive" licenses which means they don't impose many requirements (other ...


2

IANAL/IANYL. That said, the only halfway house I can think of is the path that Red Hat have taken with access to RHEL. If you want to get precompiled binaries (of other people's GPL'ed software) from them, you have to sign a contract that says you will not redistribute those binaries. However, anyone may get the source from them (which, it being some ...


2

Can I use a more permissive licence (e.g., BSD/MIT/Apache) for my source code on GitHub, and at the same time use a GPLv2 license for its PyPI binary distribution? Yes, you can. You can even create a separate PyPI binary without FFTW3 support and distribute that under the more permissive license. The GPL license requires that, if you use GPL-licensed code ...


2

The 2-clause BSD license is a permissive license, so from that side there is no expectation that the license is incompatible. There is a possibility that the license of the binary-only code forbids combining it with open-source software, which would cause an incompatibility, but that is not very likely. To prevent confusion, you should make it clear that ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible