On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:31 PM, drew Roberts<[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday 19 July 2009 13:24:25 Paul Davis wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:59 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> > To paraphrase the GPL, "the source code must be available along with the >> > binary in the same/normal medium of distribution or a written offer >> > (valid for three years) must accompany the distribution stating that the >> > source code can be obtained, for a minimal fee". >> >> No, this *may not* not the case here. >> >> The GPL is a license issued by the copyright holder to others that >> describes what they may do with the material and under what >> conditions. The GPL license for the material does NOT apply to the >> copyright holder. They may do whatever they want. > > I think you are correct in this and should this be considered a *bug* in the > GPL? Should the GPL itself require the release of the source code by the > original copyright holder as a condition of using the GPL in the first place? > > Also, if I as the original author release a program under the GPL but only > supply the binary, doesn't that make things very tricky with people who might > pass on the binary to others and their requirements to supply the source?
no, because if i supplied the program to them *UNDER THE TERMS OF THE GPL* then i must offer them source. the difference with being the original copyright holder (note the singular) is that i could choose to offer it to them under some other terms instead. they would then be prohibited (presumably) from redistributing the binary i had given them. --p _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
