[dundee] Ofcom GPL issues

[James Le Cuirot]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 11:47:15 +0100
Robert Ladyman <it at file-away.co.uk> wrote:

> I'm cross-posting this as it involves a study with software that uses
> GPL software: there is a claim in the report that there is 
> 
> "nothing in [the GPL] that stops the software from being:
> 
> * Given away, for free, without the source code (Freeware)
> * Given away, for free, with the source code (Opensource)
> 
> It would, however, be contrary to the licence to sell the software
> without the source code."
> 
> To me, this is a misreading of the licence  - paragraph 5 in the
> preamble of the licence even gives an example: "For example, if you
> distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a
> fee....", etc.
> 
> The section is in the first part of the report.
> 
> Am I correct?

As usual, IANAL and I must admit that I haven't heard of any cases
where someone has been prosecuted for not releasing the source code
when the software has been given away for free, but it is common
knowledge within the free software community that the GPL is not
supposed to work like this.

You can keep source modifications to yourself but only as long as you
don't distribute the modified software. Distribute is the key word
here. The FSF's FAQ gives clear examples of what this means.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution

James