3 ms·

Are we sure they aren't complying with the GPL? After all, it only requires distribution of source to those who receive the compiled code. Which is to say, unle

Are we sure they aren't complying with the GPL? After all, it only requires distribution of source to those who receive the compiled code. Which is to say, unless you have a Tesla in your garage, you have no claim to the source.

johnpmayer 14y ago
Well i guess it only takes one owner then?
tellarin 14y ago
Where did you guys get that info? As far as I know, it's always been that if you distribute something with GPL code, you must make the source available to anyone that requests it. Not only to your customers. One can change though, for the costs of making it available. The thing you mentioned is applied to licensing. A person is only under obligations by the license if he/she distributes anything that uses GPL code. If people only run a piece of GPLed software, or if they make changes only for personal use, they're not under GPL license obligations.
- callahad 14y ago
  > if you distribute something with GPL code, you must make the source available to anyone that requests it That's only true if you're operating under section 3(b) of the GPLv2: explicitly offering source via mail order. If you offer GPLv2 source via mail order, you have to honor mail order requests from anyone. However, you aren't required to offer the source via mail order at all, as per section 3. In the GPLv3, the analogous section, 6(b), is actually further constrained: if you explicitly offer GPLv3 source via mail order, you're only obliged to honor requests from people that have the object code in their possession.
  - tellarin 14y ago
    I don't think this is the right interpretation. I've replied with my understanding of it in more details to your other comment at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5030865 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5030865 (in case other people want to follow the conversation).

3 ms·

Are we sure they aren't complying with the GPL? After all, it only requires distribution of source to those who receive the compiled code. Which is to say, unle

by callahad 14y ago

johnpmayer 14y ago
Well i guess it only takes one owner then?
tellarin 14y ago
Where did you guys get that info? As far as I know, it's always been that if you distribute something with GPL code, you must make the source available to anyone that requests it. Not only to your customers. One can change though, for the costs of making it available. The thing you mentioned is applied to licensing. A person is only under obligations by the license if he/she distributes anything that uses GPL code. If people only run a piece of GPLed software, or if they make changes only for personal use, they're not under GPL license obligations.
- callahad 14y ago
  > if you distribute something with GPL code, you must make the source available to anyone that requests it That's only true if you're operating under section 3(b) of the GPLv2: explicitly offering source via mail order. If you offer GPLv2 source via mail order, you have to honor mail order requests from anyone. However, you aren't required to offer the source via mail order at all, as per section 3. In the GPLv3, the analogous section, 6(b), is actually further constrained: if you explicitly offer GPLv3 source via mail order, you're only obliged to honor requests from people that have the object code in their possession.
  - tellarin 14y ago
    I don't think this is the right interpretation. I've replied with my understanding of it in more details to your other comment at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5030865 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5030865 (in case other people want to follow the conversation).