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

Archive
182

That’s a deviation of the topic.

Personally I don’t care if what I propose is realistic or not for you, I think it is very realistic, I never said family, or during some weeks, and will you tell me that you never shared an Addon with anyone? For example, Animation Nodes, are you sure where is the source code for the binary you are sharing? It’s not paid, but you should.

Interpretation has no room when we talk about a license, and I know the FSF knows that. I take what I read, not what I would like to read, and I see real situations that happened to me, like sharing an Addon with PYD’s on it without knowing where the source is, and I’m sure it happened to you.

GPL is not what you want it to be, it is what it is, and it states what it states, in the same way customer =/= user as some
Interpreted here, or in the same way that if I share a binary with someone I’m the responsible of providing the source, not the original author as I interpreted at first.

And I don’t think this discussion reached and end.

I proposed other situations like what happens if I’m the author of the original program, do I have right to access the code of the modified one?

183

I really dont want to fight with you on this at all. And I also don’t know what to reply to that the GPL is what it is. Your constructed scenarios are not that bad because it could never ever happen that eg a student wants a copy from you, its so unrealistic if we assume that you will be sued by him because of that in regards to an infringement on the GPL rules.
What I said about morality some posts ago should also be important here, but it seems its not so important to discuss that here. I believe you that you try to be fair and honest with buying software so its all good. And in short in such a lawsuit you constructed it would be ones word against another’s. What an advocate would recommend your student to sue you.

And why don’t you simply share a link to animation node?
And if you talk about paid addons. No indeed I don’t share these at all.
And no you did not say some weeks, you said the person wanted to test a software. I assumed some weeks of testing are enough, You also didn’t say family, but “publish in your home.”

184

That’s just one of the cases I proposed, and I don’t think we are fighting here, we are talking to have a better understanding the license that rules Blender, that’s it.

There are other cases like the original program developer entitlement to ask for the modified code to the “modified program” developer, for example, or the conflict with “program” or “modified program”, and the answer to that question, if “program” and “modified program” are two different things, then users of Blender are entitled to ask for Blandar Pro source code.

2 Likes
185

Ok, glad you see it that way.

3 Likes
186

You don’t.

The GPL grants every user of the software to use and modify it in any way as they wish, without obligations to anyone. The GPL attaches requirements only to the distribution of software.

If I were to make my Blend++ that automatically records videos to youtube and has my hardcoded YouTube password, the BF has no right to demand my source code (with the password in it).

3 Likes
187

Just to drive the point home a little more

Unless stefan distributes blend++ he’s not obligated to give either the binary or the source to anyone, stefan is free to do whatever he wants.

now if Stefan were to share his copy of Blend++ with his friend steve, steve now has the right to see the code (and the password) and give copies to other people. If Steve is a good friend, he wouldn’t, but he is free to do so if he wishes.

The key here is the transfer between Stefan and Steve THAT is what triggers the license.

the BF is not a party in this transaction, it neither transmitted blend++ nor received it, hence it gained neither rights nor obligations on blend++

Which is also why the 1 year delay on the release of the E-Cycles patches to the BF was not a problem, E-Cycles had no obligation to share any code with the BF in any timeframe, however they were free to do so if/when they desire.

Now make no mistake, stefan does not get to insert this arbitrary delay of 1 year for receiving the source code when steve asks for it, since it would put an extra restriction on things, the GPL does not allow that, the rights stefan got when he got a copy from the BF HAVE to be the same rights that steve gets when he gets his copy from stefan.

5 Likes
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.