| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
GPL FAQGPL FAQPosted Jul 12, 2007 5:52 UTC (Thu) by JesseW (guest, #41816)In reply to: object code distribution requirements in GPLv2 and GPLv3 by sepreece Parent article: An update on Yoggie GPL compliance 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.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||