On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 03:33:17PM -0800, Keith Rollin wrote:
[Max Bian wrote]
>> Isn't [it] true according to the GPL, they have to supply the source
>> code at least upon request?
>
> Only to people who have the binary, I think. I'm certainly no expert on the
> subject. But the whole point of the GPL is to allow people using a program
> to modify that program. There's nothing that says that the source is freely
> distributable.
Uh, no... the mechanism used by the GPL to ensure that people can
modify a GPLed program is precisely to require the source to be freely
redistributable. According to its preamble, the whole point of the GPL
really is
to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of
free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that
you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you
can change the software or use pieces of it in new free
programs; and that you know you can do these things.
> #include <JohnMarshallCorrections.h>
All right, then :-). The GPL is very readable, and queries like this can
be answered by reading it; see <URL:http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html>.
> Only to people who have the binary, I think.
This is either a meaningless distinction or plain false. Specifically,
in this case:
Sony has produced a derivative work (which I'll call "Sony-Poser") based
on Poser. Sony is not the copyright holder for Poser, so if they wish
to distribute this work (Sony-Poser) in any form, copyright law requires
them to do so in accordance with the GPL [section 5].
Sony has a choice to make in section 3 of the GPL:
(a) Sony may accompany the Sony-Poser binary with its corresponding
source code
In this case, anyone who gets the binary gets the source code. But
anyone can get that binary, so this is a pretty meaningless distinction
from just plain "anyone".
(b) Sony may accompany the Sony-Poser binary with a written offer to
give corresponding source code to any third party
(Yes, it really says "any third party", with good reason.) If Sony
makes this choice, anyone who hears about their offer, regardless of
whether they have a binary, may ask Sony for a copy of the source code,
and Sony is required to provide it.
(Choice (c) of section 3 is not available to Sony because Palm
accompanies Poser's binary with its source code, not an offer.)
I could go into more detail, but I think it would be off-topic on this
list. IIRC the usual place for these discussions is gnu.misc.discuss,
and the GPL FAQ (see URL above) is also useful.
The above is one non-lawyer's reading of the GPL. It is my
interpretation of what someone in Sony's position wrt Poser is required
by law to do; I don't make any comment on Sony's actual behaviour. I am
not familiar with what Sony actually does in this regard, nor do I
(until recently :-)) personally particularly care.
> But that aside, the big issue is that Sony's modifications are made against
> old versions of Poser, and the ones I saw were made in such a way to break
> support for all other devices.
Keith is of course free [section 6] to share the source code he has seen
with third parties, who may want to help with this work.
> I had been trying to work with them to fix
> both problems. It now sounds like they're close to that, so there's a
> chance I can merge their modifications back into my source code base.
This would, of course, be ideal. Hasten the day! :-)
Christian Falch wrote:
> The whole point is that its illegal to
> distribute the binaries and not the sources.
Yup.
> for example its not allowed only to make the sources
> available on request, or by patches (diffs) etc.
Nope.
Because we're not all spammers ;-) (and web and ftp etc are pull
technologies, not push), there's a sense in which sources are always
provided by request. And you may provide merely an offer to supply
sources [section 3b], but noone does that anymore now that everybody has
their own server permanently connected to the Internet.
Patches per se are also fine. What is required is "the preferred form
[...] for making modifications" [section 3]. In some cases (e.g.,
prc-tools, derived Posers), I would contend that the preferred form can
involve patches.
John "but that's enough off-topic religiousity for now :-)"
--
For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see
http://www.palmos.com/dev/tech/support/forums/
