Re: GPL vs. NDA dilemma

From: JPM III (jpmccord_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 07/13/03 

Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 11:39:58 -0400

> >>Wrong. You are only required by the GPL to provide sources to
> >>people to whom you have provided binaries. You have done that.
> >
> > Clarification: you're required by the GPL to provide sources to people
> > to whom you have provided binaries *provided that* you distribute the
> > sources with binaries. Otherwise if you distribute binaries without
> > sources, then any third party may ask for sources.
>
> That's not quite true either. You have to give it to a third party
> who gets the binary from the party you distributed to. I know the
> words in the GPL say "any third party", but the FSF has clarified
> in the GNU FAQ that the third party will have to present a copy of
> your written offer to distribute.

But wouldn't it then be that middle person's responsibility to deliver the
source code, since they distributed the binary to the third person? I mean,
after all, you have already given them the source code per GPL requirement,
so now they are required to share the source with the binary, not you. Or is
that what you said?

> The idea is that the party you gave the binary to will be obliged to
> supply source code if they distribute. They can satisfy their obligation
> by giving the third party a copy of the written offer you made to provide
> source code to third parties. The third party then comes to you for the
> source code.

Well, yes, that makes sense. But if someone else is redistributing without
direct access to the source code, isn't that person potentially in violation
of the GPL? After all, how can he know for sure that the requested source
matches the source still available on the web site.

If software producer A decides to discontinue distribution of a particular
version, but some third party distributes it and then sends someone to
software producer A for the source code of an old version that is no longer
available, who violated what? On one hand, software producer A no longer has
the source of an old piece of software. On the other hand, the redistributor
is sharing the software without any direct access to the source.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: Possible gpl problem?
    ... distribution at all can acquire the source code. ... discriminate on the basis of who is trying to enforce the agreement. ... If I say "any third party may hire my services for $200/hr", ... the binaries knows how to obtain the source code. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • RE: Possible gpl problem?
    ... The GPL FAQ says: ... "Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled ... If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • RE: Possible gpl problem?
    ... years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your ... cost of physically performing source distribution, ... to distribute corresponding source code. ... in accord with Subsection b above.) ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Boot CD and terms of use
    ... any third party a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding ... or selective-authentication system (it must be accessible to ... in theory, the source code could be available to anybody, it may end up ... To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ...
    (Debian-User)
  • RE: Possible gpl problem?
    ... Accompany it with a written offer, ... years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your ... cost of physically performing source distribution, ... to distribute corresponding source code. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)