3 ms·
> It sounds rather like customers get source access. Technically, you could provide binaries and a GPL license, then provide source code when verified customer
by npsimons 6y ago
> It sounds rather like customers get source access.
Technically, you could provide binaries and a GPL license, then provide source code when verified customers (eg they send their receipt/license number with their request) ask for it.
IANAL, but as far as I can tell, there's nothing in GPL that says you can't sell the software and operate this way. If your customers hand out the binaries to third parties, that's on them to provide the GPL and source code, not you. And of course, they could sell, re-release, etc, but anyone else could come and do the same to them.
It's risky, to be sure, and it feels "wrong" only because we've become conditioned to the status quo of so-called "intellectual property". Frankly, I would love if I could write open source software for a living, but there's a big fear of letting go of a steady paycheck (and benefits!), but that has more to do with entrepreneurship fears than software licenses.
- neophiite 6y agoThat's the business model of grsecurity (selling security patches for the linux kernel). They have an additional clause that if you re-sell/re-release the patches, you lose access to future patches. It's controversial.
- dwohnitmok 6y agogrsecurity's policy is such a fascinating end-run against the usual redistribution freedom associated with open source. "Sure you can redistribute the software. We'll just cut you off if you do." But suing Bruce Perens for saying that this is a legal risk is a pretty bad look for grsecurity... https://www.theregister.com/2020/03/27/grsecurity_bruce_perens_gpl_settlement/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/03/27/grsecurity_bruce_pere...