On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:50 PM, R. Brent Clements <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rbclemen@gmail.com">rbclemen@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
I just re-read the GPL v3 quickly, and I see nothing about being<br>
obligated to anyone other than the entities I directly conveyed the<br>
work to. I understand that in a feel-good, share-and-share-alike<br>
world that is all very feel good and all, but it is the line that<br>
divides. If RMS was required to give away copies in order to have the<br>
right to sell them that would be completely different. In my example<br>
above the nominal cost of receiving a copy of my source from me is<br>
$100, and I will throw in a free copy of the binaries and related<br>
data.<br>
<br>
>From the licence:<br>
--begin cut<br>
6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.<br>
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of<br>
sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable<br>
Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these<br>
ways:<br>
a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product<br>
(including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the<br>
Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily<br>
used for software interchange.<br>
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product<br>
(including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written<br>
offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you<br>
offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give<br>
anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the<br>
Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is<br>
covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used<br>
for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable<br>
cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access<br>
to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.<br>
<br>
--end cut<br>
<br>
Key part there is obligated to give the source to those who possess<br>
the object code<br>
And from what I can tell including the source only with the original<br>
distribution is perfectly legit under the GPL<br>
<br>
Obviously my 10 customers could decide to redistribute the contents of<br>
the medium in any way they see fit, but if they don't copy the whole<br>
package including the source to their "customers" they are modifying<br>
the work and would have to cover the cost of distributing the source<br>
themselves.<br clear="all"></blockquote><div><br>Look at this:<br><br>"... to give ANYONE WHO POSSESSES THE OBJECT CODE either (1) a copy <br>of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by <br>
this License, ... , or (2) access
to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge."</div></div><br>First, if you are distributing PHP or Ruby or Python, then it is already source code.<br><br>But regardless, if you sell the binary form to anyone, the license allows that person <br>
to give the binary to anyone they want to share with. Then that third person can ask<br>you for the source code and you are obliged to give it to them.<br><br>So, third parties can ask for the source code, and you have to make it available.<br>
<br>If you are using the GPL code internally only for tools and such, then this is not<br>distributing, and you are not obliged to give anyone access to it. The trigger is <br>"distribution", including selling, sharing, ...etc.<br>
-- <br>Khalid M. Baheyeldin<br><a href="http://2bits.com">2bits.com</a>, Inc.<br><a href="http://2bits.com">http://2bits.com</a><br>Drupal optimization, development, customization and consulting.<br>Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. -- Edsger W.Dijkstra<br>
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. -- Leonardo da Vinci<br>