GPL and dsitribution of source code

Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw at
Mon May 27 23:34:50 UTC 2002

On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 01:05:57AM +0200, Kalle Svensson wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> [Tomasz Wegrzanowski]
> > > If a binary is distributed for a fee I am entitled to receive the 
> > > sources according to GPL 3b at a minimum charge covering only the costs 
> > > of the physical transfer.
> > 
> > Only if YOU got this binary, you are entitled to get the sources.
> > The fact that someone distributes binary or sources to other people
> > doesn't entitle you to anything.
> Wrong.  Clause 3b from the GPL:
> 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;

This is aplicable only in case when they distribute without binaries
without sources, what isn't true in this case.

> Somewhat related, the cool URI of the week:
> Question 6 deals with exactly this question.

As a side note, this quiz is repeating very popular misunderstanding
that method of linking decides wheather something is considered
'derived work' or not. Just because you link 2 things (question 5)
doesn't mean that they automatically create 'derived work'
under American or other law. So correct answer for question 5 may
be 1 in some circumstances.

More information about the Discussion mailing list