Re: The worst that can happen to GPLed code

[David Kastrup]

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> In article <cal259$jcl$1@pump1.york.ac.uk>,
>  Chris Jefferson <caj@cs.york.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Brian Gough wrote:
> > > Chris Jefferson <caj@cs.york.ac.uk> writes:
> > > 
> > > 
> > >>Also, let me point out that (I hope) I'm not a troll. I've just
> > >>been working on a project with some friends and we are now
> > >>considering what licence to release it under. I'd quite like the
> > >>GPL, but a number of my friends would perfer a "you can read the
> > >>code, but you can't distribute altered versions" style licence.
> > > 
> > > Both the scenarios you suggest would allow to you make a legal case
> > > against someone.
> > > 
> > Thanks.. just a couple more questions :)
> > 
> > If we put the binary on the website, I get the feeling we have to 
> > promise to provide the source FOREVER to anyone who gets a copy of the 
> > binary. Surely we don't have to give the source away forever? can we 
> > offer the source to download next to the binary and tell people to 
> > download both then claim they had the opportunity to get the source and 
> > if the didn't take it, tough?
> 
> I think putting both binary and source next to each other on a 
> distribution site is generally considered to meet the requirement to 
> "accompany [the binary form] with the ... source code" in section 3a of 
> the GPL.
> 
> Also, even if it didn't, where did you get the idea that you have to 
> provide source code forever?  Section 3b specifically says "Accompany it 
> with a written offer, valid for at least three years...."  You could 
> make it valid forever if you wanted, but you're only required to support 
> 3 years.

And only if you have not met 3a instead.  If you always put up binary
and source code together up, according to 3a, nobody can blame you if
you take them down together again.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum