From License Preamble…
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
If you distribute… that does not imply that you are or are not the author, but distributing, gives you certain obligations
Cheers.
So the best way to acquire a GPL based software is what @SavMartin said, to ask for the source code immediately and if you want to avoid any hassle, post it publicly so anyone with that you share the binary can access the source code.
I see that as something very dangerous, way more dangerous than that any user is able to ask for the code to the original programmer.
And keep in mind that we are talking about BLANDAR-PRO, a derivative work, not the original software, but a modification, it’s not the same.
Anyways, I already sent an email to the FSF and we’ll see what they answer, I’ll post here both emails as soon as I get an answer.
GPL doesn’t care, you have the right to ask for the code, if that code made available to you on DVD , a memory stick, github or by implementing RFC 1149 is not a concern of the GPL.
the GPL has the following to say on the subject (6b)
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
So if Alice choses to put it on a network server it has to be free, in any other physical form it has to be ‘a reasonable cost’
I kinda feel like a lot of your questions could be answered by just sitting down and reading the license…
The problem is not to read the (which I have read) is what is interpreted…
That is what we are discussing here…
User =customer or user != customer
Code has to be easily delivered or it has to be demanded.
How long does the defendant have to give you the code? One year, one month, immediately?
These are my doubts, and of course I have my interpretations.
just as others have theirs…
I just want to know if I am interpreting correctly or how my wishes can be more than logical…
The danger is that if you don’t ask for the code right away, and for some reason you become unable to get the code, then you could be in trouble, so to be safe, as soon as you purchase some GPL software the best course of action is ask for the code immediately, to ensure that you can comply with the obligations of the GPL
Irrelevant for the GPL. The GPL regulates distribution, be it through a web store or emailing a copy to a friend. Doesn’t matter who distributes it or for what price. As soon as you distribute the software (author or not), that is giving it to someone else, you have to provide access to source code.
If you are unable to provide source code, then you shouldn’t be distributing the binary.
@SavMartin: Thats a simple fact. Customer -> User. Its an implication.
I find this discussion somehow strange. What is the reasoning behind this questions? Do you want to publish GPL based code, or is it about questioning paid software under the GPL?
If you have the right for the code and want it but don’t get it, recourse may be had.
This depends on your intent to distribute, if you plan to use the obtained software purely for your personal use, there is no need, if you plan to distribute copies to other people (as is your right) it would indeed pay off to have your “ducks in a row” before you do so.
I don’t get it. If you purchase a software as a user you don’t have to fear anything. The GPL is a PUBLISHING license. If you don’t publish code that relies on the gpl there is no danger.
Where do I want to distribute it does not matter, it could be a friend that asks me for the binary to test it, or it could be for a co-worker in the studio, at that very moment where I distribute it, no matter how, I’m responsible of having the code, or provigin access to it, as it’s said here in the license:
e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under subsection 6d.
Correct. Note that this restriction is a small price to pay for your freedom to redistribute. Try negotiating a redistribution license with Adobe or Autodesk?
This is the standout feature of the GPL: it puts developer and user on the same level. A user has the freedom to modify and distribute the software they receive, under the obligation that they have to grant the same freedoms to the recipient.
we are not specifically talking about E-Cycles, that was an example, we are talking about a situation with the GPL, we are now talking about BLONDAR-PRO 5.6… which is obviously way more cool than just Blender. 2.91… hahaha