So… I’ve asked for several clarifications os the GPL to the FSF, and I want to say one thing first>
“program” and “modified program” are considered independent programs, so those of you that support this were right 
Now I’ll proceed to paste the questions and the answers from the FSF because it will be a surprise for many of you as it was for me, from now on this will be the email and answers
START OF THE EMAIL -----------------------------
–QUESTION–
We have two softwares:
A: GPL software, publicly released, free of charge and with public source code, licensed under GPL, let’s take v3
A-MOD: GPL software, a modification made by a different person that in principle has no direct relation to the software A directly.
This modification is released under a paywall, so the person who did the modification, lets say 5% of the code was modified, is charging people 300€ to access the binaries.
The source code is not publicly available.
–FSF ANSWER–
If (A) is licensed under the terms of the GPL, and someone who is not
the copyright holder of (A) modifies the software, then they can only
further distribute that software in abidance with the conditions of the
GPL. This means, among other things, that if they distribute a copy of
the binary, whether gratis or for a fee, they must also offer the
corresponding source to the recipient of the binary in one of the ways
the GPL sets forth.
–QUESTION–
1.- A person purchases software A-MOD , thereby becoming a user of software A-MOD, can that person ask for the source code to the developer of software A-MOD ?
–FSF ANSWER–
Yes, and moreover the source code must be offered in one of the ways the
GPL requires.
It is not the responsibility of the recipient to ask for the source. It
is the responsibility of the entity doing the distribution to offer the
source as per the terms of the GPL, or be in violation of the license.
–QUESTION–
2.- A person received software A-MOD shared by a friend, thereby that person because a user of software A-MOD, but that person has not made a purchase, that person received the binary because a friend shared the binary with him, can that person ask for the source code to the developer of software A-MOD?
Can that person (user) be forced to pay something to have access to the source code of software A-MOD?
–FSF ANSWER–
Please see:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
What does “written offer valid for any third party” mean in GPLv2? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPLed program no matter what? (#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid)
If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
Note that the responding the written offer mention in the FAQ can
involve a fee, but that fee can be “a price no more than your reasonable
cost of physically performing this conveying of source”.
–QUESTION–
3.- A person is a user of software A, the original software on what software A-MOD is constructed, and then that persons sees software A-MOD , but don’t have access to the binaries, being a user of software A (the original software, and not the derivative or “version”), can that person ask for the source code to the programmer of Software A-MOD ?
–FSF ANSWER–
No, the two are independent in this regard.
But that shouldn’t stop anyone from requesting, as opposed to demanding,
the source for other reasons such as wanting to cooperate with the
author of the modified version. There are other incentives to sharing
the source code besides being required to by the license.
END OF THE EMAIL -----------------------------
The person of the FSF that clarified my questions is Yoni Rabkin.
So I extract several things from here, but the most important ones:
-
If a software under GPL is distributed in any way it MUST be accompanied by the source code, in the case it’s not accompanied it MUST be acompanied by a written offer to receive the source code.
-
It’s clear, as it was before, that any binary licensed under GPL can be distributed freely, and it’s something encouraged by the FSF
-
It’s clear that if someone redistributes to you the binary by any means you MUST receive the written offer, but it’s not responsibility of the recipient to receive such offer or the source code, it’s the responsibility of the distributor to provide such offer or the source code, if they are not distributing one of those two they will be in violation of the GPL
-
It´s clear that ANYONE that has the binary has right to ask for the source code TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR, that’s what the written offer is for, so the users can contact the author to ask for the code.
-
It’s clear that a user us a USER, it does not have to be a CUSTOMER, because anyone receiving the binary is considered a user and must have the written offer for the code.
So I think many of us were wrong in many things.
At least is now clear that Blender Market, or the authors of the program if it’s distributed via gumroad or any other mean, for example, has to accompany the binary with one of two things or it’s in violation of the license:
- The source code
- The written offer to get the source code
So “Blandar Pro” must have the written offer to the source code so anyone with thee binary can request it.
Any person with the binary is entitled to get the source code from the Author, they must have the written offer if they don’t have the source.
To put the source code at hand of users is not something that only has to be done when the user asks for it, but it has to accompany the binary, or at least the written offer.
So I think many things are kind of wrong and in violation of the license, luckily it’s as easy as appending the written offer from the developer / author together with the binary.
I hope this clarifies some of our bigger doubts and keep in mind this is not MY interpretation, this is the asnwer from the FSF, the license is what it is, and it’s important that everyone has VERY CLEAR it’s duty’s and rights.