From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2003-07-12T16:21:17+09:00
Subject: Re: OT: GPL - was Re: My brief and torrid affair with Ruby.

"Austin Ziegler" <austin@halostatue.ca> wrote in message
news:200371121383.345668@PADD...
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 09:39:06 +0900, Sean O'Dell wrote:
> >"Josef 'Jupp' Schugt" <jupp@gmx.de> wrote in message
> >news:20030711214905.GB1838@jupp%gmx.de...
> >>Saluton!
> >>>Two points should be made. (1) A selling company must give the
> >>>source to the customers
> >>Note that they must only hand out the source if they explicitly ask
> >>for it. They need not distribute it with the binaries.
> >Actually, the GPL requires that, wherever you distribute the
> >binaries from, the source code must be available right alongside it.
> >I've seen it said a couple times in this discussion from various
> >people that a developer can withhold source code from distribution
> >unless someone explicitly asks for it, and this is not the case; the
> >GPL actually requires you to distribute the source code alongside
> >the binaries.
>
> Not according to section 3 of GPL2. Note option (b). It's easiest to
comply with section 3(a), but you can comply with sections 3(b) or 3(c)
instead, although section 3(c) is restricted. Note that while section 3(b)
says "any third party", in reality that's going to be customers or their
customers. IMO, section 3(b) causes problems in the event of the developer's
"death" (whether an individual or company).
>
> 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the
> following:
>
> a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
> source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1
> and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
> or,
>
> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years,
> to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
> physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-
> readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed
> under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily
> used for software interchange; or,
>
> c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to
> distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed
> only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the
> program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in
> accord with Subsection b above.)

I think I stand corrected ... I'm not sure.  Further down in paragraph 3 is
this:

'If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to
copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the
source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code,
even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with
the object code.'

which doesn't quite support my assertion, but then in the GPL faq maintained
at gnu.org, there is this statement:

'The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from the same
place"; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you make arrangements
with another site to keep the necessary source code available, and put a
link or cross-reference to the source code next to the binaries, we think
that qualifies as "from the same place".'

.... which I think is where I got my notion that when you distribute binaries
for download, you have to provide source right along next to it.  But in
looking close at the GPL, I can't figure out why the faq would make the
above statement.

Oh well, it seems to me that the faq is simply wrong.

    Sean O'Dell