Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Rob Thorpe
Date : Thu Aug 25 2005 01:28 pm

Arthur J. O'Dwyer wrote:
> 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.

Yes, you can do it that way too.

> >> 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

Yes, I think, that's true (but I don't know for sure).  I didn't think
it was a useful detail.

> >> 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.

Yes, if you don't modify the program you don't have to do any
distribution.  I didn't think Tatu meant that.

.