> If you don’t modify any of the source for the applications in those containers, then you have no changes to release.
Pretty sure this is wrong. GPL says that if you distribute the binary, you must distribute the sources with it [1]. Modified or not. And not a vague link to the upstream project: the actual sources that were used to build the actual binary you ship.
Then pretty much all licences (permissive or copyleft) require some kind of attribution.
Either the source itself, or a written offer to provide the source. But you're right that 'vaguely gesturing' at it doesn't seem to be permitted. Not to mention the license terms not being prominent in the binary (with hardly anyone outside of GNU actually putting a license command into their programs). This kind of stuff is why I'm not in the business of distributing free software.
Pretty sure this is wrong. GPL says that if you distribute the binary, you must distribute the sources with it [1]. Modified or not. And not a vague link to the upstream project: the actual sources that were used to build the actual binary you ship.
Then pretty much all licences (permissive or copyleft) require some kind of attribution.
[1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinar...