theora dev - Nov 2010 - Consistency regarding compiled Cortado 0.6.0 sourceand the official binary

It should probably not be necessary in my case to compile a custom version of
the Cortado applet-the official binary works fine, and may be advantageous over
a locally-compiled version (regarding compatibility with 1.1-era JVMs), as was
mentioned in a previous message. My interest was to include the corresponding
source code when distributing the official binary (i.e. as would be required for
license compliance and for any users who had a technical interest in source
code.)

When distributing the official Cortado applet binary on physical media (as part
of at least one project that involves HTML files and Ogg Vorbis audio playback),
my practice has been to include the source file (cortado-0.6.0.tar.gz) and to
also include copies of the relevant licenses (GPLv2, GPLv3, LGPLv2, LGPLv3 (the
GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licenses may not apply to the Cortado applet, but they are
provided because some users might have an interest in them)), and also to
include an HTML file that incorporates the text of the LICENSE.cortado,
LICENSE.jheora, LICENSE.jkate, LICENSE.jtiger, and LICENSE.smoke source files.

Presumably, it is permissible to distribute the official binary of the Cortado
applet as previously described in this message without mentioning the use of the
Proguard software-this is what I have been doing.

--Richard

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 9:57 PM,  <mezzanine at safe-mail.net>
wrote:
> It should probably not be necessary in my case to compile a custom version
of the Cortado applet-the official binary works fine, and may be advantageous
over a locally-compiled version (regarding compatibility with 1.1-era JVMs), as
was mentioned in a previous message. My interest was to include the
corresponding source code when distributing the official binary (i.e. as would
be required for license compliance and for any users who had a technical
interest in source code.)
>
> When distributing the official Cortado applet binary on physical media (as
part of at least one project that involves HTML files and Ogg Vorbis audio
playback), my practice has been to include the source file
(cortado-0.6.0.tar.gz) and to also include copies of the relevant licenses
(GPLv2, GPLv3, LGPLv2, LGPLv3 (the GPLv3 and LGPLv3 licenses may not apply to
the Cortado applet, but they are provided because some users might have an
interest in them)), and also to include an HTML file that incorporates the text
of the LICENSE.cortado, LICENSE.jheora, LICENSE.jkate, LICENSE.jtiger, and
LICENSE.smoke source files.
>
> Presumably, it is permissible to distribute the official binary of the
Cortado applet as previously described in this message without mentioning the
use of the Proguard software-this is what I have been doing.

"For an executable work, complete source code means all the source
code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and
installation of the executable." --GPLv2

But fortunately the cortado source contains the proguard
configuration.  I think that is perfectly sufficient for license
compliance? though we probably ought to make it more explicit in the
documentation.

Here is the procedure we use for our release process:
http://wiki.xiph.org/Cortado/release