5 Aug
2009
5 Aug
'09
5:10 p.m.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:31 PM, drew Roberts<zotz(a)100jamz.com> wrote:
On Sunday 19 July 2009 13:24:25 Paul Davis wrote:
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
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 11:59 AM,
<laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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? 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.