Here's a response from an FSF volunteer: -- begin -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fri Nov 04 22:35:22 2005]: > > Are copyright holders who license software under the GPL compelled to > release source code? > e.g. > > Person A writes a program. > Person A says it is under the GPL. > Person A gives a copy of the software to Person B, but does not make > the program available by other means (eg internet, mail order) > Person B wants source code > > Is person A required to give person B the source code to a GPL program > he holds full copyright on?
Dear Andrew, In this specific case, while B should be able to receive the source code under the terms of the agreement that A shared the software with them, there is no one to force A to actually share the source code. (Unless, perhaps, legal action were taken regarding the misleading nature of the offer that A was making.) If the code includes any other GPL'd code from a different copyright holder, then they are required to release all the source - either with the software or via a written offer valid for all third parties. Cheers! -- Zak Greant --end-- So person A can withhold the source as long as the program doesn't contain other GPL code. However person B could begin legal action over a misleading deal. Andrew On 11/5/05, Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:30:03PM -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > > On 11/4/05, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Scripsit Andrew Donnellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > I mean the *developer* must comply with both licenses, eg if you d/l > > > > under the GPL and MIT, then the developer must still put the written > > > > offer for source code > > > > > > By "developer", do you mean "copyright holder"? He can legally do > > > whatever he pleases. In particular, he can offer the general public > > > a licence under terms that he does not himself comply with. > > > > Are you saying it's possible for a developer to release GPL covered > > software in binary form without releasing the source code as long as > > he's the copyright holder? That sounds awfully bizarre... > That's my understanding. The copyright holder can do whatever they > want. Yes, doing such a thing is bizarre, and I can't think of a > reason why anyone would do it. It doesn't actually grant anyone else > any modify+distribute rights, and is arguably suficiently inconsistent > to not grant anyone any rights. But it could be done and I don't see > that its "illegal". If it is, just use a "my interpretation of the > GPL is that this is not illegal" clause. > > :) > Justin > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See store for details. Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
