On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 04:08:09PM +0100, Simon Jenkins wrote: > Marek Peteraj wrote: > > >>There's no obligation to make the object/executeable generally available. > >> > >> > >There is as the the name of the GPL implies. See my previous (longer) > >post. > > > >From your previous post: > > >>> The keyword 'General Public' applies to each Section of the GPL , and > >>> you have to interpret every statement made by the GPL with respect to > >>> 'general public'. > > I can find nothing in the GPL or the FAQ to substantiate this claim. > Anyway, I think you're parsing the name wrong: IMHO Its a > General(Public(Licence)) not a (General Public)Licence. > > >>> The GPL also uses the term ,any third party'. > > And the FAQ clarifies exactly what is meant by "third party": Under some > circumstances (ie GPL section 3c) Distributees may pass along your written > offer of source code when they pass along your binary. Your offer must > extend to these third parties (they are "parties" to the licence agreement, > btw) as well as to your original distributees. > > You absolutely DO NOT have to make executeables available to the general > public when you modify a GPL program. You don't even have to make them > available to anybody at all if you dont want to. Nor, in fact, do you > even have to inform anybody that these modified versions even EXIST. > > But if (and only if) you distribute an executeable, then you are obligated > to make source available to those who you distribute it to, and to "third > parties" as described above. > > Simon Jenkins > > > >
Nobody had a problem with Native Instruments just packaging the sources on a CD with Final Scratch: http://eca.cx/lad/2003/11/0010.html :) IANAL, but I'm 99% sure that when you give someone a GPLd executable, you're only obligated to provide that one person with the sources, not the "general public" (read: everyone on earth). Of course, I wouldn't put it past Stallman, but it seems way too screwy...
