GPL license discussion & Blender Forks (E-Cycles or any other fork)

Archive
188

Well I at least a few interesting things.

1st -. Now I know that there is no difference between user / client.

2nd -. Who is obliged to provide you with the source code is the distributor of the binary, not the author, if this is not the one who has distributed it to you “publicly”.

3rd -. If, for whatever reason, I have not distributed the binary to you previously, that exempts me from giving you any source code.

And now the things that I still have doubts.

1st -. How long have I since I acquired the binary to ask for the source code?

2nd -. If the distributor refers me to the author of the code, can I sue him, or is he providing me with an effective way to obtain the source code?

3rd -. If I privately provide a software that I acquired publicly and never asked for the source code, and the person who obtains it from me, publishes it publicly, then if they claim him, can he claim me? Or because I did it privately, am I exempt?

4th -. If I am a user / client of part of the software that is in a public distributor, (accredited) can I request that the distributor give me the part of the code of which I am a user excluding the one that I am not? Or as the code of which if I am a user he has not distributed it to me, does not have to give me any?

As you can see, I have things that I think many of us agree on, but there are still some important things for which I have doubts.

189

But if BF buys the binary from Blender Market, if he could demand the source code? . or would I have to wait? one year? , more? , never?

1 Like
190

If the BF bought a copy from blender market they instantly get the rights to the source code.

7 Likes
191

I’ve received the answer from the FSF, it’s late tonight, tomorrow I will publish it.

2 Likes
192

Urgh, cliffhangers… :smile:

2 Likes
193

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 :slight_smile:

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–:point_down:

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–:point_down:

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–:point_down:

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–:point_down:

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–:point_down:

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–:point_down:

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–:point_down:

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–:point_down:

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.

4 Likes
194

I find your attitude totally hypocritical, let’s say that for licensing reasons you are able to deprive him of his income by redistributing his work for free, what do you think the consequences will be?
It would instantly signal the end of E-Cycles and ultimately deprive the foundation of significant improvements.
What a great victory for the community !

1 Like
195

Thanks for taking the time to ask the FSF and clarifying the situation for all of us!

This answer is misleading in my opinion as it only covers the case that there is a written offer, such that any third party can request the source code.
When the original distributor of A-MOD doesn’t provide a written offer (neither 6b, nor 6c), but decides to provide a download for the binaries and the source code (6d), there is no need for a written offer. According to my understanding, there is no need to provide the source code to third parties who have the binaries. Am I misunderstanding something for that case?

1 Like
196

The written offer is not optional, it’s mandatory, if you don’t give the source code with the binary you must include the written offer.

The reason we require the offer

you must provide a written offer

It’s mandatory to offer the source code or the written offer for it:

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.

Keep in mind that if you decide to distribute the binary it must be accompanied by the source code, the written offer is just an option the GPL gives you in case, for example, that the source code is so big that you decide to not put it together with the binary, or in case you decide to not include it just because it won’t be useful to the users and it will just clutter the download, but it’s not optional to include the source code, it’s mandatory, the written offer is just to help you.

Anyone with the binary is entitled to ask for the source code, because two things may happen:

  • They already have the source code because it was with the binary
  • They have the document where it says where to get the source code

Keep in mind this part:

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.

197

No, that is not clear to me. Also keep in mind that “You” in English is the same for second person singular and plural.

I think the question should have been clearer and more concise for the case we discussed.
“A” developer sells a binary of GPL software called “X” privately to “B” person. In theory “B” person received source code. Then “B” person shares a “binary” on a website which he claims it is “X” software, but we don’t really know if it is really pure “X” software or a modification of “X” software that we could call “XX”, since in theory “B” person is capable of doing it by having received source code of “X”. So suppose now that “C” person downloads the binary “B” person published (could be “X” but that could also be “XX”. We do not know for sure). Is “A” person obliged to provide the “X” source code to “C” person if “C” person requests it to “A” person?

198

The person distributing software XX (as if it were software X) must accompany it with a copy of the source code or with the written offer to get the source of such software, what you are proposing is a person lying.

In that case that person would be in violation of the license, but that does not eliminate the responsibility of sharing the binary with the code or with the offer, the license does not ensure that a person wont lie, but the final responsibility of giving the source code of software X (not XX) is from the author at the very least in case that binary was not shared with the source code.

If later on the source code is compared with the binary functionality and it’s demonstrated that the binary does not correspond with the original source code and even the binary compiled from the original source code then the person that distributed software XX as software X, lying to the users, is the responsible of such action, so that person is the one in violation of the license, not the original Author.

But the binary MUST have the original author written offer IF it does not include the source code, and in the end you are downloading a software that theoretically is the original one, the original Author has no responsibility of that binary there because you did not get the binary from him, but it has the responsibility to respond to the written offer and give you the source code, not the binary, and I imagine the original Author can sue the person that deceived and distributed a software XX as if it were software X.

I imagine that you can find Blender full of viruses being distributed in some shady websites, the BF is not responsible to those viruses, but it’s responsible of providing the original source code of Blender as it’s being officialy distributed.

Keep in mind this:

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.

199

According to this, a written offer is one of the options and as such it is not required:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid

If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.

1 Like
200

The point is not whether there is a lie or no lie. The point is that a binary has been published by a third party, and the original author should not answer or be responsible for what a third party does. It is that third party who must provide the source code of the binary that he/she published.

Anyway, even if a third party has published the original software, still the explanatory text is confusing to me and the particular issue is not as clear as the conclusion you drew.

201

That’s only in the case you don’t want to provide the source code with the binary, as it’s mandatory, but other situations are proposed below, as I said it’s one or the other, and people sharing the binary must accompany it with the offer or the source, there cannot be one without the other.

202

And it’s not, if that binary is dangerous the author has no responsibility of the deceiving, but that binary must have or the source code or the original written offer, as it’s being distributed as software X, not as software XX, one of two has to be present with the binary, and the original author has to respond to the written offer.

Please be my guest and ask to the FSF, they are the ones that told me all this, I’m not interpreting anything.

[email protected]

1 Like
203

Sorry, I ignored the context. Because of question 1 it is clear that there was a written offer and that’s why the second question only dealt with this case.

However, I don’t agree with this conclusion you brought up:

If we take the case that the Author provides both the binaries and source code and person B only downloads the binaries and shares them with person C. (Now person B is violating the GPL.)
According to my understanding, the Author doesn’t have to provide the source code to person C, even though that person has the binaries.

204

As I said one of two, source or offer, has to accompany the binary when it’s being distributed.

If person B don’t share the sources then it’s in violation of the GPL, if the sources were made available to him (no need to ask for the sources, they must be made available to person B automatically, or the written offer) , if there were no sources together with the binary but instead there was a written offer he has to provide the written offer.

So the author has to provide the sources to the owner of the binary in case that binary was not ORIGINALLY provided with the sources and it was provided with a written offer.

If the sources were present with the binary, then B MUST provide those sources and there is no responsibility of providing such source code by the original author, since the author already provided it with the binary, and there is no written offer.

But keep in mind that if person B distributed the binary without the source, then person B is in violation of the license. (of course, not the author).

As I said, there will always be people that may break the license, and those people are the ones that will be in violation of the license.

2 Likes
205

I’m sorry, but I don’t think like you, hypocrite for me, is to talk all the time about the work that it costs you to develop a software, about the money you are going to lose if you copy it or distribute it without paying anything, at the same time that you are using the Blender code for your projects without having paid anything by redistributing your software with the free work that others have developed.
Why can you do that? because the GPL exists, because some people have to respect it because it benefits you, and you can skip it when it hurts you?

What do I do to the community? defend the rights of the community, defend the development of Blender, defend the work of the Blender dev, that we have financed between all of us.

If all that doesn’t seem reasonable to you to defend, maybe you should think if you value our community as much as I do.

2 Likes
206

For author, it is very important to know in practise that the administrative duties may not explode because someone somewhere violated the GPL.
Also people who somehow got binaries have to understand that only a written offer gives them the right to ask author for the source code. Otherwise, there might have occurred a GPL violation somewhere and author is not responsible to handle that.

2 Likes
207

I guess 1 year of full time dev for addons like archipack, cad transform, refine tracking, and many contrib in 2.79 addons are a good starting point to talk about added value to the “community”.

Gpl also grant you the right to try to make things better, especially parts where the bf dont see any interrest to put some efforts, and at some point the same than bf, independant devs need funding to do so.

My feeling is that the question here is not about gpl as a mean to get sources, but as a mean to get things for free, hence the word “hypocrit”.

1 Like