[OT] some weird GPL licensing questions

[Tim Jansen]

On Monday 09 February 2004 21:43, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> So here we go:
> AFAIK the GPL mainly says that if you have the binary version of something
> you have the right to get the sources of this version.

No. If someone *gives* you the binary version, the sources must be included or 
a written statement how to obtain them without charges (more than cost of 
media etc).

> Does this also mean that I only have to give the sources to people who have
> the binary version ?

To whose you gave the binary versions, yes. For instance, you are not required 
to make them available on the net. But you can't forbid those who got the 
binary versions (and thus have access to the source) to publish them.

> And does this also mean that I don't have to give the sources to somebody
> who doesn't have the binary and who I don't like (for whatever reason) ?

Yes.

> Let's say I (in the case I would be an until now proprietary-only
> developing software company) would decide to make a library dual-licensed
> GPL and commercial, I wouldn't *have* to put the GPL sources on a website,
> right ?

Right.

> I would only have to ensure that everybody who buys the binary 
> version from me is able to get the sources for the binary, maybe he has to
> send me a mail and then I send him the sources. Right ?

Correct. 

> Would I actually be allowed to sell this software ? I.e. would it be ok to
> say "give me 500 euro and you get the GPL binary library, and if you ask
> for it, I'll send you also the sources". 

Yes.


> Of course as soon as he would have 
> received the sources he would be allowed to make them available for free on
> his webpage. Right ?

yes.

bye..