[SGVLUG] An interesting (I hope) GPL question

[Dustin Laurence]

On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 02:28:29PM -0700, Emerson, Tom wrote:

Here are some quick and not-carefully-researched opinions:

> In short, the question is this: GPL enforces the right of anyone (who
> receives the program from you) to request the source code.

Not quite.  You have the option (section 3(a)) of shipping both together
(or of distributing both simultaneously from the same server, see the
paragraph before section 4), in which case you don't need to offer to
mail anything ("one of the following", not "all of the following").  It
is when you use option 3(b) and don't accompany the binary with source
initially that you must offer to supply source code by mail (3(c)
doesn't apply in this case because it is his own software).

IMO 3(a) or the "same server" variant is the only one that makes sense
for an individual, but then I hate snail mail and rarely manage to use
it.

> about that, but does it also compel you to release copies of the code to
> "anyone who just plain asks for it"?

I believe so:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid

The reason is transitivity (if A gives B the binary but B doesn't as for
the source, then B gives the binary to C, C must still be able to get
the source, which has to be from A).  Since there isn't an easy general
way for A to know if C has the binary A must just give the source to
anyone who asks and pays the distribution costs.  The thinking must be
that this isn't a problem for anyone (A is getting paid for the cost of
distribution) unless they are up to no good.

> 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]

Correct.

> 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?

I guess under 3(b) the answer must be yes.  Under 3(a) the answer is no,
since nobody can ask for the source.  It's automagically available for
those who care at the time of distribution.
> 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.

The genie is *always* out of the bottle--even if the answer were no in
the 3(b) case, if your prices are beyond what the bit-copying market
will bear users will purchase 1 binary and then put the source on a
website, which is their right under the GPL.  Anyone who doesn't like
that shouldn't use the GPL in the first place.

> Would (or could) Mr. A be "compelled" to give away the program and
> source?  [my thought is "no" --

Correct: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIDemandACopy

> 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?)

Who is "you"?  I think section 3 is reasonably clear; if A receives the
program, he must either also receive the source or an offer to send the
source (he could instead have downloaded it from a site and declined the
source download, in which case he might have neither, but I'm going to
ignore that case in what follows).  He has the right to redistribute for
free or for money provided he meets one of the provisions of section 3.
If he choses option 3(a), nobody can compel him to distribute the source
later.  If he choses 3(b), he must make the offer himself in which case
he can be "compelled" (your words) to distribute.  Or, *if* A is *not*
selling it and received it in binary form, he may use option 3(c) and
simply pass on the offer he was given.

> 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...

Well, after writing all that, I found that you had already checked the
same source I used. :-)

Dustin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.sgvlug.net/pipermail/sgvlug/attachments/20060417/8617a70d/attachment.bin