This discussion seems much more involved than it needs to be.
If you obtain a binary of GPL software then you have the right to ask for the source-code from whoever provided it to you.
Did anyone purchase e-cycles, ask for the source-code and not get it?
If you donât purchase it, but receive it, you can ask for the source code to the author of the binary, not only to the person that gave it to you, because you are a user, no matter how you got the binary.
Yep.
but the key is here âThe GPL does not require you to release your modified versionâ, the users are not just the users of your modified version, but also the users of the original version, since itâs a derivative work, so any Blender user is entitled to ask for the source code of a publicly distributed derivative of Blender (sold or not)
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the programâs users, under the GPL.
Here it specifies âthe program usersâ not the users of the modified version, in this case the program is Blender, and the modified version is E-Cycles
@ideasman42 this much is clear ! What seems so strange to me, is that the right for a user of -say- Blender to ask for source carries over to all derivatives as well. I get that this works âupstreamâ so to say (ie any user of E-Cycles can ask for Blender source), but the other way as well ? (ie Blender users can ask for E-Cycles source?)
@JuanGea Donât you think there is a chance they mean âthe modified programâ here ? (ie E-Cycles, and not Blender)
I donât want to sound pushy or anything, I am rather new to this hence all the questions.
They mean what itâs written there, not a different thing, itâs a license, the program is the original work, the modified version is as itâs specified there, a âversionâ
Otherwise it could hurt the original author of the program and wonât benefit everyone, which is the target behind the GPL.
Donât worry, I wrote here to try to clarify what happens with the GPL, because I had to try to clarify this to many people, with the obbligated disclaimer, Iâm not a lawyer, but in the license things are pretty straight forward and clear, as long as you donât want to mix it with closed source software.
Itâs simpler if you donât think of this being directional.
Users of GPL software can ask for the source â the events leading to the source being created donât come into it.
Thatâs 100% accurate 
I suggest to look at the GPL (v2 or v3) itself rather than the FAQ, the word âuserâ is not used in this context as far as I can tell, so I would not read too much into that term.
If the user is not re-defined in subsequent versions of the GPL then the first definition applies, itâs what I mean.
However even if we go to the dictionary, the word user is clear:
So a user itâs a user, not a customer, a user of a pirated software like max or maya are users, but not customers, since they are users they can be in court for USING the software without license.
This is from GPLv3:
the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a programâto make sure it remains free software for all its users.
Thanks Campbell (and others), I see. I guess I expected it to be more complex than it really is !
The term âuserâ is not used in " 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms." in the GPL v3, so however you define it, I donât think itâs relevant. Itâs also not used in the equivalent section in the GPL v2.
That part is describing the intent of the license, not the actual terms of the license.
Then where is the term âuserâ defined according to you?
If there is no definition of a term inside a contract, then the general accepted definition is the one that has to be interpreted, if the term âuserâ is used, but not defined, and itâs tacitly used as long as itâs used in several parts of the license, then the term in the dictionary would be the one accepted in court, so that makes the term user as itâs defined in the dictionary.
It`s great that you enter to make this point, but can you help clarifying whatâs the situation with software like E-Cycles?
Also this is from the section you mention:
A âUser Productâ is either (1) a âconsumer productâ, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user, ânormally usedâ refers to a typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product.
Thatâs just an example, a simple search shows the term âuserâ in that section several times.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html
Also donât loose sight that a preamble is not something isolated in a contract, but something that applies to the whole contract, so being in the contract is the same as being mentioned in the article 6.
I donât really want to go deep into analyzing the license. You definitely can get the source code from the person that distributed the Blender executable to you as explained by @YAFU and @ideasman42 , that much is clear.
Itâs just not clear to me that you can always get it from the original author, and I donât think your reasoning backs it up. The term users there is used in order to define what a âuser productâ is.
The GPL v3 gives five ways in which the source code can be distributed, if e-cycles follows one of them itâs fine, and I havenât looked at precisly how they are doing it.
Well, I donât find important also the other points.
Thatâs why I mentioned that in case you (meaning any person, not you personally) donât want to interpret a Blender user as an E-Cycles user, being E-Cycles a derivative work of Blender and not an original product, then it applies anyways to any user of the software in question, which is e-cycles, a version of the original software, not a software by itself, the means on why or how you got the software (the binary) does not matter, and thatâs clarified in the FAQ and in the license itself, I think I put the âselling softwareâ section of the GPL.
A user is what is defined as a user in the dictionary unless itâs defined in a different way somewhere in the license, and the license makes a call about users, not about customers.
In the same way I donât see where do you extract that you can only ask for the code to the person that gave you the binary, the code is free, as in freedom, and since you are a user of the binary, you are entitled to ask for the code to the author of that code, no matter if you know the author personally, if you have contacted him in the past or not, as a user of a modification all users of the original program can ask for the modified code, not just the users of the Version.
Thatâs precisely what defends Blender of being transformed into a commercial nearly closed source platform, when there is a derivative, not an original software authored just by one person, if that person that made the derivative of the software makes it public, the other users of the original software are entitled to ask for the source of the publicly distributed modified version.
BTW this talk is not about E-Cycles doing something wrong, I want to clarify this, no one is arguing if E-Cycles can be sold or not, it can be sold for sure.
And I donât know if E-Cycles source code is being made available to the users or not, what I wanted to clarify here is that people is thinking about users as âcustomersâ, and thatâs not the case, any user of the binary is a user of the program, then it has all the rights granted by the license to the users of the binary.
According to my understanding, the source only needs to be provided to paying customers, if the following part is being used (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html):
6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
- 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.
If the distributor of the object code (binaries) decides to share it in the described way, there is no need to make anything more public. And in that case only the customers have to get access to the source code.
This is the exact point where I disagree with JuanGea.
In short. If you make a software available to everyone(!) then everyone has the right to ask for the code as any specific person asking for the code could get his hands onto the software before.
On the other hand this also implies if you donât release it at all then nobody can ask for the code.
The license for your code may be implied by the other software you utilized within it, if not then you may have had a choice what kind of license you used for publishing.
But if you are a user that possesses a gpl piece of software, then the gpl clarifies what your rights are. THEN the given license applies in regards to the software used. And if that is the gpl then you may ask for the code.
So no. Not every blender user may ask for the code of a derived work he just heard of. But once he posesses a specific product, thats when the gpl allows the user to ask for the code, no matter where he got if from.
And @brecht is right, that the user and a customer are different things. You donât have to be a customer. Once you are a user then the license applies and then you got the rights.
After going through all those semantics:
Is there actually anyone out there who was denied a legitimate request for source code?
I think no and I would find it better if this discussion would have been completely decoupled from ecycles. To me it s rather an a general discussion on the legal situation for plugin development and alike. Not more.
The e-Cycles dev did submit the code some time ago:
/Offtopic: He also stated several times that after 1 year he would submit the updated patches, given the huge performance gains it might be worth taking a look at his work.
It seems to make the most sense.
Iâm personally just interested in what these licenses entail, itâs purely out of curiosity. The E-Cycles example was used as a point of explanation, I think it could as well have been any other fork such as âBlenderForArtistsâ or the game engine forks.
Apologies if this has been interpreted as anyone having a quarrel with Mathieu -it is not the case. At least, I donât.