[OT] some weird GPL licensing questions
Peter S Galbraith
psg at debian.org
Mon Feb 9 21:12:39 GMT 2004
Alexander Neundorf <neundorf at kde.org> 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.
Yes, but only _from_ the person who gave you the binary. If you give
binar+source to party B and party B give a binary-only to party C, then
party C can't force _you_ to give source.
> Does this also mean that I only have to give the sources to people who have
> the binary version ?
Not only that, only to those _you_ have given the binary source to.
> Of course they are free to give the sources away
> as they want to, but that's another story.
Precisely.
> 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.
> Do I interpret this correctly ?
>
> 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 ?
Correct.
> 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 ?
Right.
> Would I actually be allowed to sell this software ?
Selling and licensing are raelly different issues.
> 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". 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 ?
Right.
--
Peter S. Galbraith, Debian Developer <psg at debian.org>
http://people.debian.org/~psg
GPG key 1024/D2A913A1 - 97CE 866F F579 96EE 6E68 8170 35FF 799E
More information about the kde-core-devel
mailing list