On 2010-03-21 15:29:44 -0400, John Hasler said:
They might, but there are cases where they did not.
One can't rely on this unlikely possibility, which becomes increasingly unlikely the more sales are made.
The point is that _you_ are not required to publish anything.
It hardly matters who does the publishing. The point is that the source still becomes publicly available.
Offering source to everyone who receives binaries from you satisfies your GPL obligations. You can ignore requests for source from anyone else. Of course, if the possibility that someone might pass the software on worries you, the solution is simple: don't link to GPL works.
Which is why many developers choose to avoid this possibility and use LGPL/LLGPL/BSD/MIT/Apache licensed libraries instead. And now we've come full circle.
warmest regards, Ralph -- Raffael Cavallaro _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
