If you don’t have the software, which is in this case E-Cycles, then you have no right for the source code. If you got the software through other channels than the mentioned market places, you have to get the source code through those other channels as well which are now legally required to provide you the source code.
4 Likes
This is a good point… because it explains everything very well and also seems to respect the GPL or its philosophy.
we should focus on this aspect…
and abandon the other user/customer discussions, free or paying.
If Alice chooses to implement 6b, and choses to do this on a network server, it has to be available for free for anyone that obtained a copy from her, if you did not obtain a copy from Alice, you are not entitled to anything.
1 Like
Yes, as DeepBlender wrote earlier, that’s a good point to keep in mind… because that would prevent anyone from being able to order the code without first paying the distributor of the code.
But I’m worried about what @Jonathan has written and what I’m pointing out in this image
I can sell you my awesome Bleach 3.0. Since it is GPL, you can do with it whatever you want. So, you are allowed to share it with anyone and they don’t have to pay me a fee. If you weren’t allowed to do that, it wouldn’t be free software.
What exactly worries you about that?
2 Likes
But I’m worried about what @Jonathan has written and what I’m pointing out in this image
I’m unsure what the confusion is here, to translate this question to our Bob Alice, Gary example (Just a quick recap, Alice paid bob for a copy of blandar, Gary got his copy from Alice for free)
Bob> Does the GPL allow me to require that Gary pays me when he gets his copy from Alice?
Answer> No, This would make the program non free
Bob can ask Alice to pay for her copy, but once Alice has the software she is free to do with it what she wants, if Alice wants to give Gary a copy for free, Bob cannot stop her, nor can he demand Gary pays him.
[edit]
And just to clarify the source situation in this example
- Alice can demand source from Bob
- Gary can demand source from Alice, but not from Bob
- Gary’s brother Barry who doesn’t have the program, doesn’t get to demand source from anyone, however he’s free to ASK any of them and all of them are allowed to give it to Barry, but no-one is required to do so. If nobody likes Barry he gets nothing and there’s nothing he can do about it.
4 Likes
This situation with very loose following GPL licence (or other foss licences) is a potential source of huge scale drama, and it should be resolved as soon as possible, because it may hurt blender’s ecosystem by repelling third party developers.
2 Likes
This is not about being strict/loose. If there is a license violation, that needs to be addressed.
5 Likes
I can’t believe this is your first post! Welcome to the forum 
I cut my teeth on your tutorials.
3 Likes
That’s why we are talking about this 
I was of a different thinking earlier too, and I clarified some things, like the responsibility of the person hwo distributes it to anyone, from my point of view, just to be safe, from now on I’ll ask for the source code of any GPL software I purchase, I won’t put it publicly thought, but I will archive it, from any version, because it is not just my right but also my duty.
However there is still a thing here.
All that we are talking here is about original software, in the license there is a difference between a program and a version of a program, a derivative of the original software.
Up to what extent the derivative is tied to the distribution method or source code availability of the original software?
I mean, if you do a derivative of Blender and part of my code is in your derivative, am I entitled to ask for your modified version?
Also when talking about modifications there are two points:
-
The program
-
The version of the program
And in that paragraph it speaks about having to make available to the program users the source code of the modified version, this is also important, this is a part where if “the program” is considered the original piece of work, and the “modified version” is the modified one, and is naming the users of “the program” and not the users of the “modified version”, that means that Blender users are entitled to ask for the Blondar-Pro code.
That is kind of a big thing.
1 Like
Just to make this clear for anyone reading this, normally this is NOT your duty.
We have users and developers.
A developer in the open source community is normally about to share his coded work.
If its just about using a software, what should rather be the dominant case, I’d highly recommend to get that build from the “official” servers, where its hosted and updated for you, if its now github, a market or whatever.
If this applies to you, you are in NO WAY obliged to have the source code of it, this has nothing to do with the normal process of purchasing software.
This is my duty, if I decide to share the binary with someone, I’m now in the responsibility of being able to provide the code, if for some reason the person who owns the code deletes it, or burns his computer or whatever happens to that person, and I’m unable to get it, then I’m in trouble.
I cannot trust in the original developer to cover me, even when there may be good will and good faith, things happen, and when you accept a license or a contract you have to be sure that you are in compliance with that contract.
So it’s my duty to ensure I can honor the license and the contract I’m accepting at the very same moment I share the binary with someone, so in that case I have to cover up myself and be legally safe, and that’s why this is my duty.
3 Likes
GPL is not only about purchasing, it’s about sharing, I ALWAYS encourage purchasing the addons, even in my archviz course I don’t share the main addon we use for the walls creation part (Archipack Pro) and I ask the students to purchase it.
But with that said, if a friend comes to me and that person wants to test an addon and it’s not sure about purchasing, or his financial situation is not the best in the world and that addon can help him, I will always share the addon with that person, because it’s not only that the GPL allows for it, it’s that the GPL is made for this!
This is simple, if a developer don’t want to acknowledge and accept the GPL he does not have to develop for a GPL software, but if that developer develops something for a GPL software this is not something strange to happen.
And BTW I know quite a few big developers in other packages industries that don’t want to developer for Blender exactly because of the GPL, and I respect them, it’s their chouice.
And in the situation of me sharing something I’m fully responsible of the software I just shared, and that includes having the source code.
So I can encourage purchasing the addons, the reason I always give is that it’s not that you are purchasing the addon, you are purchasing the support, the future updates, you are supporting and helping the developer to create a bigger and better toolset for all of us, it’s not just a matter of purchasing an apple in the fruit shop, you are doing a much bigger thing than just purchasing an addon.
But at the same time I like to remove the fear of sharing to people that think they are doing piracy, that’s not the spirit of the GPL AT ALL, both things have to be crystal clear, and also my or your responsibility if you share a piece of GPL software with someone.
So yes, from this perspective I think it’s my duty, and it’s your duty if you decide to share the binary in any form.
2 Likes
It was a call for attention, not a real request, and in a later post I clarify this. 
I obviously knew that my request would not be met…
that’s why I made it
1 Like
There is another question.
What happens if you sell the binary, but then you decide to sell it only if a condition is met, that is that the user/customer has to reject his right to ask for the code?
¿Is that situation covered in the GPL?
The license itself talks about object code (binary) and how owning it gives you the right for the source code. It does not distinguish between versions and derivations. It explicitly mentions the corresponding source (6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.):
You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
If there is a license, you are not allowed to violate it. That’s the whole point of it. Only the original creators and contributors are allowed to change the license.
I don’t understand what exactly answers this… the license thing is obvious, but it can be appendices in a contract that extends the selling agreement, I could reject to sell you Blandar Pro if you don’t accept that clause, making the software a de-facto closed source software.
I’m not changing the license, I’m just adding a clause to our agreement, between you (customer) and me (seller), I’m not modifying the license, but I’m asking you for an additional commitment.
Is that covered?
(I hope it is… it could be a big hole)
Then I don’t understand this part of the FAQ:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.es.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
Or it is wrong, or there must be something in the license that confirm the answer to this question, where “Program” and “modified version” are two different things.