[dundee] Ofcom GPL issues

[Andrew Clayton]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:08:14 +0100, James Le Cuirot wrote:

> 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.

Sounds about right to me...

The GPL must one of the most misunderstood things out there!

Andrew