[Qgis-developer] RE: Qgis-developer Digest, Vol 73, Issue 51

[Alister Hood]

> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:32:29 +0000
> From: Camilo Polymeris <cpolymeris at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Qgis-developer] QIGS GPL -> LGPL - Tigers, Lions and
> 	Bears Oh My!
> To: jr.morreale at enoreth.net
> Cc: qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> Message-ID:
>
<CAA5P-m30-ZbT708y1+A1PtyyMGwKvhSFUHjAOriO8B65tiOMGg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> > It would be any user getting their hands on this binary. If your
client
> > gives a copy to his friend then his friend has the right to the
source (it
> > doesn't mean that YOU have to the one sending the source).
> 
> 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.

> 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.