This is a document about policy for Apache Software Foundation projects, not a detailed explanation of how the GPL and Apache license relate. And so I would not make conclusions based on it.
And so this conclusion is incorrect because it does not take into account all the terms of the GPL.
But âincluding the source with the binaryâ is not that specific, that wouldnât make it clear that this option also exists:
- d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
Trying to write our own interpretation of all this is a quagmire, Iâd rather not get into that.
According to the FSF answer it is pretty clear, keep in mind that this is not my interpretation but an answer from the FSF:
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.
There is also the option to not include the source, but include the written offer, but one of the two conditions have to be met.
Also in the point you posted itâs pretty clear:
Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge.
Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
This is a document about policy for Apache Software Foundation projects
I see, thanks for clarifying.
L.
Thatâs just the nature of modifying and selling GPL software. Thereâs nothing hypocritical in SavMartinâs questions. Itâs the only way things like the linux kernel have been able to flourish. Itâs one of the reasons for the success of Blender.
There are 2 ways to profit from selling GPL software: either you sell customer support, or you ask people to more-or-less voluntarily give you money because they want you to keep developing it. I think the E-Cycles author falls in both categories, so heâs not really in danger of loosing his income.
Yes, if someone else takes your sourcecode and makes an even better version, you might be screwed. But because you are probably the person with the most in-depth knowledge of your own code thatâs actually quite unlikely.
Calling SavMartin hypocritical for just following the rights the license grants him is imho uncalled for.
No we donât have to debate this at all, you seem to know yourself that there are some special cases / loose couplings where its possible to be closed source, and even if you say its a single case while its rather a criteria and then its simply not right to tell that it would be true for any addon automatically.
Thats why agreed not to give generalizing statements about that.
We can debate it or not, I leave it to your choice.
The thing is that there are ways to communicate GPL Open Source with Closed Source, but the Closed Source part is not part of the addon itself, the addon is and will be treated as a GPL program, however the GPL has situations where it considers communication between GPL software and non open source software, the situations are limited but are there, but in no way that closed source program is integral part of the addon.
In fact an addon that communicates with such closed source part and has no other functionality, so itâs just a bridge, is considered in violation of the GPL, the addon has to have some functionality by itself, as small it can be, it has to do something, and later on it can communicate with an external closed source part in different ways.
Thatâs the GPL, but in any case I encourage you to ask to the FSF with specific questions in that regards, I can advance you that they will give you support in everything related to GPL compliance and Open Source, but they will encourage you to hire their lawyers team (or any other one) for a fee to clarify the communication between GPL software and closed source software, and I know that because Iâve been in that situation and I asked them for that clarification, and I even had a long conversation about the topic over twitter with one of the FSF representatives.
The email is this one: [email protected]
Please be my guest and ask them as I did, and post the answers they give to you, this could help clarifying more blind spots of the license, which in the end itâs the final target of this thread 
Itâs important to know our dutys and rights within the license we work with
If you cant agree that generalizing sentences about legal situations like you did are not advisable, while you say that you had indepth discussions with the FSF on that topic yourself, then thatâs how it is.
Iâm not generalizing, Iâm making a difference between an Addon and other piece of software. As you saw even in the blender website an addon is GPL, even if it has files under a different license, as soon as is a Blender Addon it is treated under the GPL terms.
If you want to focus in that special case, please go ahead and write the FSF with this case, donât stay here talking with me and demonstrate me you are right with an answer from the FSF which is the main institution to clarify this things
Of course you donât have to demonstrate me anything, but then itâs just your opinion, and you were wrong before, you can be wrong now, the best option is to clarify this with whoever corresponds, the FSF
This is an important/useful topic. Itâs a pity this sort of stuff is so exceptionally hard to discuss without devolving into bickering.
A lot of useful things have been said, and the replies from the FSF were enlightening.
But I have the feeling everybody now starts to get annoyed. Which is understandable as it seems to be a law of nature that license interpretation is a subject which does that.
I propose everybody posting here who starts to get annoyed to sit back and look at the big picture for a day or so. I think most people here agree for 99%, letâs not forget that. A lot of useful stuff has been said and people were extremely civil (considering the subject) for the most part. Letâs all make sure we donât post something weâll regret when looking back in a week.
Yep, I will take a break of this topic, itâs been a lot of effort and energy, but I agree, itâs been worth the effort, and many things were clarified, now I hope we can communicate the answer of the FSF effectively so developers of addons and forks are aware of their dutyâs and rights
In principle I was roughly referring to this: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPlugins. Its about how the plugin and the hosting program communicate. I had an interesting more concrete article about possible constellations once, but sorry, I cannot find it again. I have no personal need to clarify this and the discussion here ended for me, but if anyone is interested he can perhaps go more indepth with this as a start.
Stay healthy everyone!
I just want to say â you are a hero and a pillar of this community. Bravo!
Interesting discussion. Iâd like to make things a bit more clear, but maybe this was implied earlier:
The case of source code OR written offer:
Who is to blame? Letâs find out.
I donât know if the example E-Cycles is sharing the code or if it has the written offer. But if it is sharing the code with binary, then the developer has done everything ok, and there is no reason to try to contact him for this.
Thatâs easy, Alice.
Bob did everything right because he included the source code with the binary, itâs Aliceâs responsibility to distribute the source code she has in her hands.
Regarding the case you propose, yes, you are right.
IF the E-Cycles developer includes the source code with the binary, there is nothing wrong, no third parties can contact him for the source code, since the responsibility of re-distribution belongs to the person doing the re-distribution
IF the E-Cycles developer includes the written offer with the binary, then he is doing nothing wrong, everything is ok, but third parties can contact him to recall the source code, no matter if they are customers or they are third parties that got E-Cycles trhough a friend.
IF the E-Cycles developer does not include the source code or the written offer in conjunction with the binaries, then E-Cycles is in a clear violation of the GPL.
Thanks but I donât think Iâm such a community pillar or even less a hero
Iâm just concerned about developres, new and old, knowing their rights and dutys so everyone can play in the same playfiled under the same rules, but anyone can reach the FSF to clarify the doubts and inquiries about the GPL
Yes. One more scenario came to my mind:
Must the source code be delivered just because there is a rumor that the software had been shared with the written offer? I think not.
You sure about this? My stance on this is that the written offer is to the party that received the offer, not to anyone else.
If you lets say give me an offer, going âhey lazydodo come over for a beer tonightâ Youâre clearly not going to be ok with me not showing up, but 20 of my friends do, all demanding beer.
If my friends got e-cycles through me, I distributed it, and I am responsible for supplying the source in whatever way section 6 requires me to and no-one else.
There is a difference. The GPL written offer is sharable. If you get one, and copy it to your friends, then they all are justified to get what the offer promises. But, if you just hear about the written offer, or somehow get to the binary (or what ever it is in this beer analogy) without the offer, then there is no obligation to fulfill it. This way, piracy on GPL world is possible, kind of.
Yes, Iâm totally sure, check my email where I show all the FSF answer, but here is the 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.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid