6 ms·

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I thought the GPL only required providing the source code to the purchasers of the product. (Who can then redestribute it if th

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I thought the GPL only required providing the source code to the purchasers of the product. (Who can then redestribute it if they'd like.) I didn't think it meant that if you use GPL code in your product, then you are obligated to make your code available to everyone.

voxic11 11y ago
You are required to distribute the source code to anyone you distribute binaries to. So if for instance their binaries were available to the public then they would also have to make their source code available to the public.
voxic11 11y ago
You are required to distribute the source code to anyone you distribute binaries to. So if for instance their binaries were available to the public then they would also have to make their source code available to the public. It seems in this case they released a patch to their software and made the patch available to the public.
- 13of40 11y ago
  If I sell a computer with Linux on it, and I bundle on my own application that's compiled to run on Linux, am I required to make the source code for that application available? In this case, if they just have an unmodified copy of Linux to provide the run-time environment for their nav system or whatever, and the nav system itself is an application on top of it, I don't know if it follows that they need to release the source for their nav system.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    If it's an application, no, but if it's a kernel module (e.g. drivers to talk to their devices), then yes. They still have to offer a copy of the kernel source, even if they haven't modified it.
    - jeffdavis 11y ago
      What makes you think that your distinction is the correct one legally? Has it been tested?
    - amscanne 11y ago
      >If it's an application, no, but if it's a kernel module (e.g. drivers to talk to their devices), then yes. There is debate about this, but there are certainly cases of compliant non-GPL modules. It doesn't strictly follow. (Consider Ndiswrapper, for example.) > They still have to offer a copy of the kernel source, even if they haven't modified it. I don't really think the license implies technical minutae like this. The source must simply be made available "on a medium customarily used for software interchange". Whether you point to a tag on kernel.org or host it own your own web servers (both cases including the Kconfig) is irrelevant.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        There is debate about this, but there are certainly cases of compliant non-GPL modules. It doesn't strictly follow. (Consider Ndiswrapper, for example.) Ndiswrapper is GPL-licensed. The resulting modules are probably not, but they are usually not distributed anyway. I don't really think the license implies technical minutae like this. The source must simply be made available "on a medium customarily used for software interchange". Whether you point to a tag on kernel.org or host it own your own web servers (both cases including the Kconfig) is irrelevant. Sure, but have they pointed?
        amscanne 11y ago
        > Ndiswrapper is GPL-licensed. The resulting modules are probably not, but they are usually not distributed anyway. I was referring to modules wrapped by ndiswrapper. Of course they are distributed. There are other examples as well: nvidia being a salient one.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 11y ago
  - st3v3r 11y ago
    "If I sell a computer with Linux on it, and I bundle on my own application that's compiled to run on Linux, am I required to make the source code for that application available?" Are you using GPL code in your application? If so, then yes.
  - lmm 11y ago
    If it's "mere aggregation" then you're not required to provide the source for that application. You would still be required to provide the source for the particular version of Linux you distributed though.
  - dTal 11y ago
    It's funny there's so much debate over the correct answer to this. This is literally Android, Kindle (old e-ink non-Android ones), Chromebook etc. In fact I can't think of a single commercial Linux product that doesn't use this model.
- kazinator 11y ago
  If I sell some device with an upgradable firmware (which contains GPLed materials), I can allow users to download upgrades from my site without putting them through hoops to prove that they own the hardware. Yet if they ask for the source code, then I can put them through the hoops: convince me that you're actually one of my users, then you can have it. And it's not because users who don't have my hardware cannot use the firmware. In fact, users of hardware which is not mine could potentially be users of the firmware. If a competitor clones my hardware, so that the firmware runs on it, the users of that cloned hardware can benefit from the upgrades that I provide, because I don't validate that they are using the genuine hardware. I don't have to provide the cloned firmware with free upgrades and all to the users of the competing hardware, and in fact, I am not offering those upgrades to the users of that hardware. It just so happens that they are able to help themselves to it because it accessible (for the sake of the utmost convenience to genuine users). That is not the same thing as it being distributed to the entire public. Just because something is accessible to the public doesn't mean that it's being offered to the public. Distribution requires some kind of offer. An accidental leak is not distribution, for example.
xvedejas 11y ago
Well, two things: first, they have to provide source to everyone (regardless of whether they bought the product or not) if they are releasing the product at all. Secondly, if they are statically linking with GPL-licensed code, or otherwise make modifications to the code, the additional code must also be released under the same license, and the code for that must therefore also be made available.
- nordsieck 11y ago
  "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.)" That is not true. As long as they choose option A, they only have to distribute it to customers.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
DannyBee 11y ago
So, as two people said, you have to give source to who you give binaries to. But it's stronger than that. You either have to ship them source accompanying the binary, put the source next to a place that has the binaries, or make a written offer. Since they haven't done #1, they probably have to make a written offer. I don't see one :)
tzs 11y ago
If you distribute GPL source code with your product, then that is correct. You do not have to give the code to people who have not purchased your product, but your purchasers can give away the code. If you distribute GPL object or executable code with your product, then, briefly, you have to either distribute the source code with the product, or if you have to make the source available for three years to anyone who requests it for no more than your cost of distributing the source. See my longer post for more details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11218324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11218324
anonbanker 11y ago
If I am the author of the GPL'd product you're using, I do not have to purchase your product to compel you to release the source code. I can revoke your right to use the product (including your modifications to it) should you not honor the terms.

voxic11 11y ago

You are required to distribute the source code to anyone you distribute binaries to. So if for instance their binaries were available to the public then they would also have to make their source code available to the public. It seems in this case they released a patch to their software and made the patch available to the public.

13of40 11y ago
If I sell a computer with Linux on it, and I bundle on my own application that's compiled to run on Linux, am I required to make the source code for that application available? In this case, if they just have an unmodified copy of Linux to provide the run-time environment for their nav system or whatever, and the nav system itself is an application on top of it, I don't know if it follows that they need to release the source for their nav system.
- icebraining 11y ago
  If it's an application, no, but if it's a kernel module (e.g. drivers to talk to their devices), then yes. They still have to offer a copy of the kernel source, even if they haven't modified it.
  - jeffdavis 11y ago
    What makes you think that your distinction is the correct one legally? Has it been tested?
  - amscanne 11y ago
    >If it's an application, no, but if it's a kernel module (e.g. drivers to talk to their devices), then yes. There is debate about this, but there are certainly cases of compliant non-GPL modules. It doesn't strictly follow. (Consider Ndiswrapper, for example.) > They still have to offer a copy of the kernel source, even if they haven't modified it. I don't really think the license implies technical minutae like this. The source must simply be made available "on a medium customarily used for software interchange". Whether you point to a tag on kernel.org or host it own your own web servers (both cases including the Kconfig) is irrelevant.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      There is debate about this, but there are certainly cases of compliant non-GPL modules. It doesn't strictly follow. (Consider Ndiswrapper, for example.) Ndiswrapper is GPL-licensed. The resulting modules are probably not, but they are usually not distributed anyway. I don't really think the license implies technical minutae like this. The source must simply be made available "on a medium customarily used for software interchange". Whether you point to a tag on kernel.org or host it own your own web servers (both cases including the Kconfig) is irrelevant. Sure, but have they pointed?
      - amscanne 11y ago
        > Ndiswrapper is GPL-licensed. The resulting modules are probably not, but they are usually not distributed anyway. I was referring to modules wrapped by ndiswrapper. Of course they are distributed. There are other examples as well: nvidia being a salient one.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
- st3v3r 11y ago
  "If I sell a computer with Linux on it, and I bundle on my own application that's compiled to run on Linux, am I required to make the source code for that application available?" Are you using GPL code in your application? If so, then yes.
- lmm 11y ago
  If it's "mere aggregation" then you're not required to provide the source for that application. You would still be required to provide the source for the particular version of Linux you distributed though.
- dTal 11y ago
  It's funny there's so much debate over the correct answer to this. This is literally Android, Kindle (old e-ink non-Android ones), Chromebook etc. In fact I can't think of a single commercial Linux product that doesn't use this model.
kazinator 11y ago
If I sell some device with an upgradable firmware (which contains GPLed materials), I can allow users to download upgrades from my site without putting them through hoops to prove that they own the hardware. Yet if they ask for the source code, then I can put them through the hoops: convince me that you're actually one of my users, then you can have it. And it's not because users who don't have my hardware cannot use the firmware. In fact, users of hardware which is not mine could potentially be users of the firmware. If a competitor clones my hardware, so that the firmware runs on it, the users of that cloned hardware can benefit from the upgrades that I provide, because I don't validate that they are using the genuine hardware. I don't have to provide the cloned firmware with free upgrades and all to the users of the competing hardware, and in fact, I am not offering those upgrades to the users of that hardware. It just so happens that they are able to help themselves to it because it accessible (for the sake of the utmost convenience to genuine users). That is not the same thing as it being distributed to the entire public. Just because something is accessible to the public doesn't mean that it's being offered to the public. Distribution requires some kind of offer. An accidental leak is not distribution, for example.

xvedejas 11y ago

Well, two things: first, they have to provide source to everyone (regardless of whether they bought the product or not) if they are releasing the product at all. Secondly, if they are statically linking with GPL-licensed code, or otherwise make modifications to the code, the additional code must also be released under the same license, and the code for that must therefore also be made available.

nordsieck 11y ago
"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.)" That is not true. As long as they choose option A, they only have to distribute it to customers.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

DannyBee 11y ago

So, as two people said, you have to give source to who you give binaries to. But it's stronger than that. You either have to ship them source accompanying the binary, put the source next to a place that has the binaries, or make a written offer. Since they haven't done #1, they probably have to make a written offer. I don't see one :)

tzs 11y ago

If you distribute GPL source code with your product, then that is correct. You do not have to give the code to people who have not purchased your product, but your purchasers can give away the code. If you distribute GPL object or executable code with your product, then, briefly, you have to either distribute the source code with the product, or if you have to make the source available for three years to anyone who requests it for no more than your cost of distributing the source. See my longer post for more details: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11218324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11218324

anonbanker 11y ago

If I am the author of the GPL'd product you're using, I do not have to purchase your product to compel you to release the source code. I can revoke your right to use the product (including your modifications to it) should you not honor the terms.