You mean that if you give Blender to Bob on an usb key, to copy on his drive, he can force you to also give the whole code. The term force means that if you don’t accomplish, Bob can sue you?
I never specified a USB key 
But yes, if I give Bob the Blender binary (imagine I sahre it on graphicall, something I do with our build), I must be capable of providing Bob with the source code.
1 Like
If I modify the code, it automatically becomes GPL and I have to conform to it. It is my decision whether I want to release it or not. But if I do, the GPL applies and I have to provide the source as stated in the GPL.
From my point of view, that section is only there to express that you can modify the code without the need to release it or make it public.
1 Like
And why do it specify the “program” and the “modified version”, and that you have to make the source available to “the program” users, instead of the “modified version” users?
You cannot ignore just part of what it’s said there because you don’t like it
It is FAQ with the goal to make it simple. In the license itself, the situation is way more clear.
Program is the binary version (object code). And the modified version is the source code or object code with the changes. To both, the GPL applies. Even the FAQ doesn’t state that they need to be handled differently.
I know, but if something is specified there, it should be backed by some part of the license, otherwise that question has no reason to be.
Does the FAQ tell you, you can handle modified versions differently?
Does it say you don’t?
But it makes a difference between the two in that answer, in fact it’s about the special case of a modified version of a GPL software.
Again, if that question/answer makes that differentiation, there must be something in the license that backs that differentiation, otherwise that question makes no sense.
What exactly is different from your point of view? To me, it states that modified versions have to follow the GPL as well. That’s it.
1 Like
Oh, of course! Sorry i didn’t realize how much this involves you.
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
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 program’s users, under the GPL.
It states two different things:
- Program
- Modified version
The “program” is the original version (Blender in this case), and the “modified version”, is Blandar Pro.
What that question states is that:
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 program’s users, under the GPL.
Which means to the Blender users, not just to the Blandar Pro users.
It specifically mention three things:
- modified version
- modified source code
- the program (which was the original program, not the modified one)
“Program” is the modified program, not the original one. If you see “program” as the original one, you are running into tons of logical inconsistencies and into an interpretation that doesn’t match the GPL at all.
Nope, “Program” is the original one.
Later in the same answer it mention this:
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
Where it specifically mention:
- the modified program
Which makes “Program” to be the original one.
If “program” means the original program, otherwise the FAQ expresses something very different compared to the license itself.
You are referring to the FAQ as if it was the actual license. If you change “program” to be “modified program”, it is completely compatible. Just because they mention in one place “program” and in another one “modified program” doesn’t mean they have to be different. It is only the FAQ.
No, what I’m saying is that the FAQ is redacted by the FSF, and if that’s what comes in the FAQ there is probably some part of the license that backs up this answer or it shouldn’t be there.
I assume that the FSF knows what they are doing, hence I assume that even if we don’t know where in the license that is backed up, it should be somewhere.
I’m not assuming nothing more than what is present there, there are two different roles:
-program
-modified program
They are clearly not the same
I disagree and think you are overinterpreting the FAQ. If you take program and modified program as being the same, the answer only tells you that modifications automatically become GPL as well.
However, I am still not a lawyer and might be wrong. I hope you are getting an answer from the FSF.
1 Like
I cannot interpret that “program” and “modified program” are the same because they are not treated in the same way, it’s not over interpreting, it’s being thorough, something required to understand legal documents like a license, and I’m sure the FSF is also thorough, so if that differentiation is there, it must be also in the license somewhere
1 Like
I added my last statement because your constructed cases here of being sued if you share code within your home with your wife and kids and how you alter licenses you are obliged to use are or how a student is unable to purchase a software, but then gets your purchased copy to test a software for just some weeks then does no longer want to delete it and then sues you to get the code leads to the mentionend protective steps for you is not realistic.
And because of that they are unrealistic your conclusions are also not fitting for most people. Thats why I put some clarifcations behind your statement.
And no the GPL has not been invented to enforce sharing of paid programs its about the freedom of code and open development and how knowledge cumulates. But if we start discussing that its not gonna end soon.
Clear rules mean real freedoms
that’s why we are discussing here…
It may take a long time, but it’s worth it
1 Like
I think history contains many cases where clear rules did not lead to real freedom. What do you think we will have achieved at the end of this discussion?