2 ms·

> namely: that it must be with source code GPL does not say that. What it does say is that you must provide the source upon request. > The fact that you canno

> namely: that it must be with source code GPL does not say that. What it does say is that you must provide the source upon request. > The fact that you cannot redistribute GPL software without source (whether bundled with other software or otherwise) is a restriction on whether/how you can redistribute GPL software, hence it goes against the "shall not restrict" requirement. And there's no exception carved out for "restrictions that require source code to be included". So all of what you said there is simply incorrect, because like I said, you absolutely can distribute GPL software without including the source code alongside it. And that is what is done by everyone 99% of the time. You only need to provide the source upon request to the people that ask you for it. I encourage you to take the time to read the GPL FAQ. Even though GPL is not my preferred license I think it is important to have a good understanding of it. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html

mehrdadn 8y ago
>> namely: that it must be with source code > GPL does not say that. What it does say is that you must provide the source upon request. Yes, I was being brief. I'm well aware. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17202439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17202439 ------------- To your edit: > So all of what you said there is simply incorrect, because like I said, you absolutely can distribute GPL software without including the source code alongside it. And that is what is done by everyone 99% of the time. You only need to provide the source upon request to the people that ask you for it. No, it makes no difference at all. You cannot redistribute the software unless you are willing and able to redistribute the source code as well. That is very clearly a restriction on your redistribution of the software. The fact that we happen to be talking about the software's own source code makes no difference as to whether it's a restriction or not. It'd be a restriction whether we're talking about "source code", or "$100,000", or anything else. The simple fact that you have to be willing and able to provide {something} before you can redistribute the software is obviously a restriction on your redistribution of the software.

mehrdadn 8y ago

>> namely: that it must be with source code > GPL does not say that. What it does say is that you must provide the source upon request. Yes, I was being brief. I'm well aware. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17202439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17202439 ------------- To your edit: > So all of what you said there is simply incorrect, because like I said, you absolutely can distribute GPL software without including the source code alongside it. And that is what is done by everyone 99% of the time. You only need to provide the source upon request to the people that ask you for it. No, it makes no difference at all. You cannot redistribute the software unless you are willing and able to redistribute the source code as well. That is very clearly a restriction on your redistribution of the software. The fact that we happen to be talking about the software's own source code makes no difference as to whether it's a restriction or not. It'd be a restriction whether we're talking about "source code", or "$100,000", or anything else. The simple fact that you have to be willing and able to provide {something} before you can redistribute the software is obviously a restriction on your redistribution of the software.