[SGVLUG] An interesting (I hope) GPL question

[Emerson, Tom]

I have a question that some of you may have a [very] strong opinion
about, and it's based on some advice I'm about to give to my brother in
law about some code he has written [he is, as you might imagine,
somewhat shy of using the GPL.  In fact, for this program, the GPL isn't
really a "good fit", but I may suggest it anyway]  I want some consensus
that this idea isn't as hair-brained a scheme as I'm sure he'll think it
is ;)  [Hmmm. "a hair-brained scheme" -- how did that term come into use
I wonder...]

In short, the question is this: GPL enforces the right of anyone (who
receives the program from you) to request the source code.  No question
about that, but does it also compel you to release copies of the code to
"anyone who just plain asks for it"?  There is a subtle distinction here
which is the basis of my question, so let me illustrate further:

Say *YOU* have written some code and want to SELL it as GPL code [the
GPL doesn't restrict you from charging money, so this is OK so far]

Mr. A purchases your code.  As is his right, he requests and is granted
a copy of the source code.

Mr. B, however, does not want to "pay" for your program and instead
requests the source code -- are you, as the developer, /forced/ to give
Mr. B the source?  Remember, as the author of the code you've decided to
distribute this to people who /purchase/ the program.  Technically, Mr.
B isn't a "customer", but "the genie is out of the bottle" as you have
given MR. A a copy of the program & source.

Would (or could) Mr. A be "compelled" to give away the program and
source?  [my thought is "no" -- the GPL gives him the /right/ to
redistribute, but the /decision/ to actually redistribute the program is
his, not some outside entity.]

Let's take this a step further: Mr. A decides to sell the program as
well [yeah, he's entitled to do this...] and in fact /sells/ a copy to
Mr. C, however, Mr. C doesn't request a copy of the source.  Mr. C, in
turn, gives in to Mr. B's whining and gives him a free copy.  At this
point, could *you* be compelled to give the source to Mr. B (or ANYONE
who /claims/ he received a copy from Mr. C?)  Again, I think not -- in
this case because he chose to redistribute the binary, Mr. C is
/responsible/ for distributing the source, not the author nor Mr. A
(i.e., C's "upline").  The fact that Mr. C neglected to get a copy of
the code is his fault, and his recourse would be to request a copy from
Mr. A.

--------------------------

Well, after writing all that, I found that most of my questions are
already answered by the GPL FAQ, but I still value your opinions on the
subject...

Tom