[Qgis-developer] Re: Qgis-developer Digest, Vol 73, Issue 51 [To GPL or not to GPL]

[Camilo Polymeris]

>> I understand it *does* mean that you have to be the one sending the
>> source. If you distribute a GPL'd binary without source you have to
>> include a written offer to send the source to any party that receives
>> that binary, even indirectly. In general it should be easier to
>> include the source in the first place
>
> No, you need to supply the source to the client (or provide access to
> it).  If the client provides a binary to a third party then it is them
> who needs to provide the source, not you.
> You don't have any relationship with the third party - you hold
> copyright to some of the code, but you have granted the client
> permission to redistribute it under the GPL.

>From the GPL FAQ[1]:

"The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so
that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order
the source code from you."

This may only apply to GPL 2, though, I am not sure.

>> What I am not completely sure is if, besides the users (receivers of
>> modified binaries), the original copyright holders may have a right to
>> the modified sources, even if they haven't received a binary. Say,
>> programmer makes modified version of QGIS for a company, and sends it
>> only to them. The company has a right to the modified sources. Do the
>> original QGIS devs have that right, too?
>
> No, they don't.

Thought so. Thanks for the clarification.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid