7 ms·

This is not allowed under the GPL, which he is using.

jason_slack 14y ago
good point. I wasn't trying to imply this was allowed, just another possible model depending upon circumstance.
A1kmm 14y ago
If the author owns copyright on every line of code used to make the binary, they can do what they like with it without need for a license. However, if there is other GPLd software in there, and they are relying on the GPL to be able to distribute it, then you are right, they need to comply with the GPL requirement to distribute everything needed to build it (Makefiles etc...). Disclaimer: IANAL, this is not legal advice.
simonbrown 14y ago
Is it? From my understanding, he only needs to give the full source (with a GPL license) to people he's distributing the binaries to.
- jasonlotito 14y ago
  Only if the binaries are released under the GPL.
jules 14y ago
Sure it is. Under the GPL you are not allowed to distribute a binary without also distributing the source and dependencies. But it is fine to distribute the source code without bundled dependencies.
- koenigdavidmj 14y ago
  The problem is that you also need to supply the dependencies that you used to build it (makefiles and such).
  - jules 14y ago
    Certainly. I'm not saying it's a viable business model. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, one person could even buy the pre-built binaries and freely redistribute them. The GPL allows this. However the parent is still factually wrong.
  - zem 14y ago
    not to people to whom he's not distributing a binary
    - georgemcbay 14y ago
      But once he distributes them to one person who gets the binary that person can distribute them freely to everyone else.
      - zem 14y ago
        and he's perfectly fine with that
nothacker 14y ago
Even though this is incorrect, I agree that this seems to totally violate the spirit of GPL which is meant to be used with free software. It's one thing to open source your code and have people donate to get support and fund development. It's quite another to charge for binaries. Others can just redistribute your binaries instead of you, so what is the point? Also, you are open sourcing and GPL'ing it, and yet you won't follow through and actually provide the built code- that's just shooting yourself in both feet. But, you have to appreciate the fact that he did open source it and that he is trying to make money off of it.

good point. I wasn't trying to imply this was allowed, just another possible model depending upon circumstance.

A1kmm 14y ago

If the author owns copyright on every line of code used to make the binary, they can do what they like with it without need for a license. However, if there is other GPLd software in there, and they are relying on the GPL to be able to distribute it, then you are right, they need to comply with the GPL requirement to distribute everything needed to build it (Makefiles etc...). Disclaimer: IANAL, this is not legal advice.

simonbrown 14y ago

Is it? From my understanding, he only needs to give the full source (with a GPL license) to people he's distributing the binaries to.

jasonlotito 14y ago
Only if the binaries are released under the GPL.

jules 14y ago

Sure it is. Under the GPL you are not allowed to distribute a binary without also distributing the source and dependencies. But it is fine to distribute the source code without bundled dependencies.

koenigdavidmj 14y ago
The problem is that you also need to supply the dependencies that you used to build it (makefiles and such).
- jules 14y ago
  Certainly. I'm not saying it's a viable business model. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, one person could even buy the pre-built binaries and freely redistribute them. The GPL allows this. However the parent is still factually wrong.
- zem 14y ago
  not to people to whom he's not distributing a binary
  - georgemcbay 14y ago
    But once he distributes them to one person who gets the binary that person can distribute them freely to everyone else.
    - zem 14y ago
      and he's perfectly fine with that

nothacker 14y ago

Even though this is incorrect, I agree that this seems to totally violate the spirit of GPL which is meant to be used with free software. It's one thing to open source your code and have people donate to get support and fund development. It's quite another to charge for binaries. Others can just redistribute your binaries instead of you, so what is the point? Also, you are open sourcing and GPL'ing it, and yet you won't follow through and actually provide the built code- that's just shooting yourself in both feet. But, you have to appreciate the fact that he did open source it and that he is trying to make money off of it.