On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:34 AM, ilf <[email protected]> wrote: > Bradley M. Kuhn: > >> If someone used GPL'd software to build some software the government >> wanted, and distributed it to them, the only reason it'd be a GPL violation >> would be if, upon distribution to the government, there was a violation. > > > But if a .gov entity gets a binary,
from *inside* a .gov entity or from *outside* a .gov entity? it's an important distinction. if *inside* then it's same-entity passing binary to same-entity. as if you were passing a disk with GPL binaries from your left hand to your right. if *outside* then they have the right to request the source code just like everyone else has the right to request the source code. > and it know there's GPL code in there, > it also needs to get the source, right? no there is no *need* to get the source. ok, there may be but it has nothing to do with the issue you're raising. i.e. the *right* to request the source code has nothing to do with the *need* (or requirement) to have (or get, or obtain) the source code. l.
