question about the GPL

[derek at cerberus.ne.mediaone.net (Derek Martin)]

Today, Frank Ramsay gleaned this insight:

> A CEO-worker of mine asked me a question about the GAL the other day,
> I didn't have an answer for him, and now I'm wondering what the answer
> is myself.  Since I can't read legal-speak to save my life I'm going
> to ask here as well as struggle through re-reading the GAL.

[SNIP]

> His point was they still have access to the source, they are still
> free to make and redistribute changes to the source and they are still
> free to make, redistribute, and sell variations on the program(s).  
> They just can't redistribute the binaries that company A itself
> produced.
> 
> I had always assumed the GPL would automaticly extend to the binary,
> but after talking with him I'm no so sure.  Does anyone know?

It doesn't just "extend" to the binary, it's specifically stated:

  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under
     Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
     Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the
     following: 

      a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
         source code, which must be distributed under the terms of
         Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
         interchange; or, 

      b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
         years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
         cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
         machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
         distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
         customarily used for software interchange; or, 

      c) 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.) 


Or, said another way, Section 3 specifically grants you the right to
distribute the binary, "in object code or executable form," provided you
also provide the source or a means of getting it.

Besides which, even if you weren't expressly granted the right to
distribute the binary, restricting distribution of the binary is clearly
against the spirit of the GPL, and rather silly to boot.  Company A should
be dope-slapped.  :)


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Derek D. Martin              |  Unix/Linux Geek
ddm at MissionCriticalLinux.com |  derek at cerberus.ne.mediaone.net
---------------------------------------------------------------

-
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).