[theora-dev] Consistency regarding compiled Cortado 0.6.0 sourceand the official binary

[Gregory Maxwell]

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