Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

object code distribution requirements in GPLv2 and GPLv3

Posted Jul 12, 2007 2:57 UTC (Thu) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)
In reply to: object code distribution requirements in GPLv2 and GPLv3 by JesseW
Parent article: An update on Yoggie GPL compliance

I believe the previous notes were reading the ambiguous option (b) of GPLv2 the other way than you did. The wording in GPLv3 suggests that the FSF probably intended your reading (I wouldn't have expected them to make the requirement narrower). Curiously, though, the FSF's GPL FAQ question on this point (which is still based on the GPLv2 text) disagrees and says it means you have to provide source to anyone (though it never discusses the question of whether you can require proof of possession of the written offer). However, to add a little further fuzz, that answer also cites the rationale as being to make sure the source is available to people who got the binaries indirectly, which implies the condition from GPLv3.

Given the ambiguity, I'm pretty sure most corporate lawyers would avoid risk by assuming the broader reading...

(Log in to post comments)

Posted Jul 12, 2007 3:23 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

according to the FSF if you provide GPL software to a third party that you got from someone else, _you_ are the one responsible for providing the source code, you can't just point at the upstream provider.

this would imply that as the upstream provider you aren't required to provide source to people who get the binaries from someone else, that someone else must provide them.

if you are going to be picky about the requirements then you need to be evenly picky otherwise you're just reading it to favor your point of view.

object code distribution requirements in GPLv2 and GPLv3

Posted Jul 12, 2007 8:21 UTC (Thu) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link]

Do you have a reference to where the FSF said that? I suspect they're
talking about something else, namely that you cannot pass along a 3(b)
offer if you didn't get one in the first place.

For example, if you redistribute binaries from the Debian archives, then
you cannot simply tell people they can get the sources from the Debian
archives themselves, because Debian is using option 3(a) and it never made
any promise to keep the sources there for 3 years.

That's different from the case under discussion, where the distributor is
using option 3(b) to distribute binaries without accompanying source code.

GPL FAQ

Posted Jul 12, 2007 5:52 UTC (Thu) by JesseW (guest, #41816) [Link]

Thanks for bringing up the GPL FAQ. It certainly does have it's share of ambiguities and fuzz.

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? says: "But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL." supporting the "users-only" view.

And, If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give me a copy? says: "No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses." (italics in original) which firmly squashes any claims of required public distribution if there are no object code issues.

But, What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what? says: "If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it." which clearly supports the "public distribution" view. Fuzz.

Then there's My friend got a GPL-covered binary with an offer to supply source, and made a copy for me. Can I use the offer myself to obtain the source? which says: "Yes, you can. The offer must be open to everyone who has a copy of the binary that it accompanies." which sounds like it supports the "users-only" view, but isn't conclusive, since maybe "the offer" actually has to be even wider (as the previous question seems to imply).

The question I just found out that a company has a copy of a GPL'ed program, and it costs money to get it. Aren't they violating the GPL by not making it available on the Internet? lays out the FSF's position, but it's a bit vague in a critical area. It says: "It also does not require anyone in particular to redistribute the program. And (outside of one special case), even if someone does decide to redistribute the program sometimes, the GPL doesn't say he has to distribute a copy to you in particular, or any other person in particular." What's the special case? The "written offer"? Or something else?

In total, I agree with you, the GPL FAQ is quite ambiguous and unsure about whether the "written offer" must only apply to people with a copy of it, or to anyone, with or without a copy of it. But a number of things seem to imply the FSF intends the former. Hopefully some FSF staffer is reading this, and can update the FAQ to clarify it.