Ok, I reread what you said and I get it now, here is the answer:
In this case Jim must contact the person who shared the binary with him, he may ask Bob if the binary is shared with the source code or with a written offer, in any of those two situations Jim must ask the person who gave him the binary for the source code or for the written offer, because the person who shared the binary with him is in violation of the GPL.
However, as the answer the FSF says:
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.
The written offer is MANDATORY IF you don’t include the source, distributing a GPL software gives you two options:
-Distribute the binary WITH the source code
-Distribute the binary WITH the written offer.
If you don’t comply with one of these you are in violation of the GPL, so it’s not an optiona thing, the option is to distribute the binary with the source or with the offer, but one of the two have to happen.
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.
You can give the source code in any way that the GPL allows, but you must give the code along with the binary, obviously if you want to give the code inside a USB stick, then you will have to include the written offer instead of the code itself, but one of the two conditions must be met.
If someone got the binary without the offer or without the source code, then the person who distributed that binary is in violation of the GPL, and that person will be violating the GPL IF that person distributes the code.
The golden rule is that the binary must be accompanied of the source OR the offer, one of the two, any other situation would be a violation of the GPL by the person that is doing the distribution, the original author or a third party.
This is pretty much the reason I don’t usually join conversations: I make my nice little polite writing, and then I get several responses repeating several times just what I said. So yes, I’m a bit confused right now. Or then it’s somebody else. But not about the topic on hand.
This was basically just meta-conversation, and can be removed by all means. I’m done.
This is correct. If you redistribute you need to provide the source code as well. The person who bought the binary and got the source code can redistribute the source code for “free” if (s)he wants to.
the license page on blender states’ > License details
The source code we develop at blender.org is default being licensed as [GNU GPL Version 2 or later]
Yet the source code at github states
Blender as a whole is licensed under the GNU Public License, Version 3. Individual files may have a different, but compatible license.
and again the license page on blender makes it more complicated by stating
That (GPLv3) is also the license to use for any distribution of Blender binaries.
I am rather sure it is actually GPLv2+. One cant re-license GPLv2 code under the GPLv3 without all authors agreeing. GPLv3 is incompatible with v2, see Compatible licenses - GPLv3 Wiki
No, it’s not a mistake, I remember when the GPLv3 was included, it was not so long ago, 2.80 maybe, I’m not sure, I think the newer code was licensed under GPLv3 or something like that, but currently Blender is GPLv3 for sure.
Keep in mind that the website is informative, the license is the one that goes with the code and the binary, so the Blender page is outdated probable.
I don’t get to make license decisions for blender, nor can/want I speak for the blender project as a whole, as I pointed out quite a few times, whatever I shared are my personal views.
Most of Blender’s own source code is still GPLv2 or later. However, the Blender builds from blender.org are distributed under GPLv3.
Individual parts on their own may be licensed under varying licenses. Just like Cycles is licensed as Apache 2, or libraries by others that Blender uses and are licensed in various ways.
The important point is when they are distributed in a combined work (the definition of “combined work” is a discussion on its own), that has to be done in a GPLv2+ compliant manner. Since parts of Blender are not license compatible with GPLv2 (e.g. Cycles’ Apache 2), but only GPLv3, any combination of Blender with these parts has to be distributed under GPLv3.
So again, individual parts have varying licenses. Most of Blender’s own code being GPLv2+. But if you combine all of Blender’s parts in to a single program and distribute that, one currently has to do so under the GPLv3.
First - thanks @JuanGea for asking the FSF and providing the detailed answer.
There is one thing I wondered after all this discussion. And this is an open question, not directed at Juan (simply tagged him to say thanks). So while the information from the FSF was pretty much aligned with how I had understood the GPL previously this did bring up a new question:
If a user is whoever received a copy of the software to work with it. And if furthermore that user has not only the right to receive the source code but do whatever they want with the software this brings up a question for internal company usage.
Now this is a hypothetical question that emerged in my mind when I read that for example Tangent Animation Studio might be using their own modified version of Blender internally. So I was wondering - there are other pieces of software where a company might even be using more sensitive own tech than in Blender.
The scene: I am aware that a company is fully able to use and modify GPL software for internal usage. The company is not required to release, advertise or make public the source code of the software if they use it only behind closed doors. As long as the modified software isn’t released to anyone they don’t need to provide Binaries or sources. The problem: What does this mean for the individual employee of the company, though? They are working with the software. So they would basically as soon as they work with it be entitled to see the source code as well as redistribute it however they see fit, legally speaking. Wouldn’t they?
Is the company seen as an entitiy in that case or does it break down to the individual person within?
But keep in mind that the dutys and rights of the GPL comes into play as soon as the software has been distributed publicly, but the FSF and the GPL recognise that an internal company distribution has NOT been made public, hence the GPL terms don’t come into play, so the answer would be that no, the company has rights to keep the software as private and internally they can apply the terms they want to.
GPL comes when it has been made public, either by selling and distributing it by any means, or by distributing it for free, but using inside a company is not making it Public, so the GPL don’t affects this situation.
The key thing here is “public”
P.S.: thanks for your thanks hahaha you are welcome maybe you didn’t want me to answer this, if that’s the case tell me and I’ll delete the answer and allow others to expose their point of views without interfeering, I said a lot of things here already
