Review of GPL code requirements text (source for "expensive" binaries?)

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Joel,

All IMHO...

> I've heard the GPL interpreted to say.
> 
> - You are only required to distribute source to the people whom you
> also distribute the binaries.

In isolation, this statement isn't true.

> Thus, if you charge $1M for your binaries, there's no need to put up
> your sources on any public website as long as you provide the sources
> to the customers who buy your binaries.

Ah, if you provided source *along with* the binaries then you're
following 3(a) of the GPL in which case you do not have to provide the
source to anyone else.  Note, it isn't sufficient to have customers
receive the binaries and know of a `customer only' area to access the
source online.

Because you've done 3(a) you didn't create 3(b)'s written offer,
therefore no one will have received one from you, nor will any of your
customers have passed it on under 3(c) so no non-customers can turn up
and ask for the source.

If, however, you distributed binaries to your customers without the
source then you must have given them 3(b)'s written offer at the same
time.  A customer can pass on the binaries to a third party along with
your written offer.  The third party, who you've never heard of, can
turn up waving the written offer and ask for the source "for a charge no
more than your cost of physically performing source distribution".
That's going to be less than the $1M which you originally charged for
the binaries plus written offer.

> (this doesn't restrict that customer's ability to turn around and
> provide the sources to anyone for free)

Agreed.

> Is this nuance what you folks generally consider?

It's not a nuance?

Cheers,


Ralph.