Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Arthur J. O'Dwyer
Date : Tue Aug 23 2005 10:31 pm


On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Rob Thorpe wrote:
> Tatu Portin wrote:
>>
>> You can sell GPL'd apps.
>
> That is correct, you can provide a service charging for distribution,
> building binary executables etc.  But, you must also provide the source
> freely by anonymous ftp.

   Whoa there!  Obviously false, since some programmers don't /have/ 
anonymous FTP service.  In fact, as I read it, the GPL seems to propose 
"put the source on a floppy disk and mail it" as the recommended method
of dissemination.

>> You just must provide the source code also.
>
> Yes.
>
>> But
>> you aren't required to give the source to somebody that is not your
>> customer.
>
> Incorrect.  If you do not distribute your app you are not bound to give
> the source code to anyone.  If you distribute your app you are bound to
> freely provide the source code.

   ...to those to whom you distribute the binaries!  Tatu is right --- you 
certainly are under no obligation to give away the source code to 
non-customers.  Here's what I mean:

   Alice creates a program called Wuffalo, and releases it under the GPL.
   She decides to sell it at $50 a pop.
   Bob buys a copy of Wuffalo from Alice. Alice gives him the binary, and
     a copy of the GPL.
   Bob asks Alice for the source code to Wuffalo. Alice is now legally
     obligated to give Bob a copy of the source code, by whatever means
     she can --- FedEx, if nothing else works.

So far so good. Now it gets interesting.

   Eve asks Bob for a copy of the source code. Since Bob is an a**hole,
     he says "no".  This is okay, obviously.
   Eve tries to buy a copy of the binary from Alice. Alice says
     "no, I hate you, go away."  This is okay, since Alice owns the code.
   Eve asks Alice for a copy of the source code. Alice says
     "no, I hate you, go away."  This is okay, since Eve is not a party to
     the GPL (which is a license associated with the binary, which Eve
     doesn't own, because Alice refuses to sell her a copy). See:
http://gnu.rtin.bz/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#TOCWhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
That was the part Tatu said was correct, and Rob said was incorrect. I 
agree with Tatu.

Okay. So /as long as Bob cooperates/, Eve can't get the source code.
   Suppose Bob freely gives a copy of the Wuffalo binary to Eve.
   Now Eve asks Bob for the source code; Bob, being an a**h***, says "no".
     As I understand it, this is /still/ okay!
   Now Eve asks Alice for the source code.  At this point, Eve owns a copy
     of Wuffalo, which means Alice is bound by the GPL to deliver the
     source code to Eve.  Alice cannot legally refuse to give Eve the
     source code at this point.  See:
http://gnu.rtin.bz/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#TOCRedistributedBinariesGetSource

>> Then, it's up to your customer to decide, whetever or not he
>> shares his app & source with others.
>
> No.  Once code is GPLed by someone other than yourself it cannot
> legally be unGPLed.

   By "his app & source", I think Tatu meant "his copy of Wuffalo," not 
"a program he wrote based on Wuffalo."  In that case, yes, certainly;
Bob can even kick sand in Eve's face without breaking the GPL.  It's about 
/freedom/: If Bob /had to/ give Eve a copy, then the license would be 
forcing him to do something, just like normal licenses that force him to 
give (Alice, Eve, whoever) some money, or a postcard, or whatever.

HTH,
-Arthur

.