[OT] some weird GPL licensing questions

[Roger Larsson]

On Monday 09 February 2004 21.43, you wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know this it OT here but here are competent people around :-)
> The last time I tried kde-licensing it seemed to be dead.
>
> 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.

Not necessarily... IMHO, IANAL

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

I would recommended to send the source with the binary (on CD)
	GPL 3a
Written offer to any 3rd party (could be in paper documentation)
	GPL 3b

And finally (for 2nd party)

    GPL 3c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form with such
    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

I interprete this as:
	2nd party might include your written offer but may not charge
	for your binary.

	If 2nd party got the source from you they have to send it along.

	3rd party should from 2nd party either
		get the source - and thus will have no need to query you.
		get your written offer about the source

	If 3rd party only get the binary, then someone has done something
	wrong.
	1th party, might have released binary GPL library without source or
		offer (i.e. not a GPL release!!!)
	2nd party, might have re-released binaries without source or offer.
		(against GPL)
	3rd party, should have either source or offer. Binary is not enough!

		

> Of course they are free to give the sources away as 
> they want to, but that's another story.

> 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) ?

They might even have the binary! They need the offer too...

>
> 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 ? 

No you need not.

> 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 ?

If that is the offer you make.

I guess that you could write in your offer that they have to include a
specific code word in their mail!

> Would I actually be allowed to sell this software ?

Yes, for parts that YOU wrote
or for giving warranty (if you did not you may only charge distribution costs)

"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

> 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".

What is the difference between your proprietary binary library and the GPL
library - the offer. But that offer can be invoked by anyone. How do you know
if he got it from one of your paying customers or not?

Better would be
"(second licensed) binary library for 100 euro,
 GPL library
 a) including GPL source 500 euro
 b) including written offer for source 500 euro"

But you will have to be careful when accepting patches - you can not
include them in your (second licensed) library. (They are copyrighted by the
writer too, with the intention to follow the GPL license - not necessary to
support your proprietary library...)

> 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, and maybe support them - you do not need to support it!
(you can always charge for bug fixes / new features but it will be
to expensive for most end users)

GPL is good enough for commercial development!

Assume, you have paying customers that receive the latest source.
They release a product with your library and your library source.
An advanced end user notices a bug in the library (now rather old source), he 
wants the bug fixed. Asks the library developer - you
 - to expensive for the end user... (not desperate enough)
 - would require own work to integrate in product.
But since he has a support contract with the 2nd party he notifies 2nd party -
he should have done that in the first place...

2nd party pays (in one way or another - might have a support contract)
to get the newest bug fixed version, gets it, uses it with new release
in his product. Delivers new program (with source) and new library (with 
source) to their customers with support contract (3rd party)

Everyone is happy :-)

/RogerL

-- 
Roger Larsson
Skellefteå
Sweden