WebKit based browser initiative

@joerg

>For example YAM is GPL and you can ask Amigakit to send you the >YAM sources they are using for their AROS/m68k YAM executables, >and as you wrote only customers who bought the binaries have that >right, nobody else.

While most in your recent post is absolutely correct that isn't. The GPL does not differentiate between people who BOUGHT the product and people who got the product copied from someone who bought it (which is not illegal - of course copying the WHOLE THING would be illegal - for example if someone bought my ports of Quake 2 and GemRB it would be legal if he copies the binaries to other people (though I would prefer other people to buy them too of course, to give something for the hard work ^^) but copying the installer scripts (which are not under GPL) would be illegal (The Binaries are under GPL, the installer scripts aren't).

There is of course this thing that the GPL only is for those who have access to the Binary, NOT for those who just read about the product on newspages and want to damage the business for the authors of the software (). But the GPL also says the source-code request has to be made "easy" which means you cannot require answering questions to validate access to Binary. If someone asks in the way described in the archive you have to provide the source-code no matter if the guy bought it or copied it. You cannot "check" if he bought it.

The only little thing existing is that you can define how source-code request is done (assuming it is "easy and reasonable") in the actual archive (readme typically). For example requiring request to be done by email.

Nothing hinders you specifying that to request the source-code people have to write to a very specific email-address and nothing else being a valid source-code request for example. Which means to request people have to either buy the product or copy it from someone who bought. Which sort of rules out grifters ^^

@TheMagicSN
Quote:
I meant BSD is more restrictive than public domain or a license that says do whatever you want. With BSD you can use the code even in closed source products but you can't claim you wrote it and you have to say where the code comes from in binaries and source. For example if you have an Apple product check the legal notices in About, they have a lot of such copyright messages to show where parts come from. BSD license does not require the source to be published but you also can't claim copyright for it and have to keep the original copyright message.
The GPL is even more restrictive and says you can only use the source such that it won't become a closed source software. You can still make changes to GPL software for yourself as long as you don't distribute it but if you give your modified version to somebody then they are also entitled to get the sources for it so they can also make changes or adapt it to their needs. The LGPL requires this only to the software itself, usually a library which then can be used by closed source project without making the project that uses it have to be open source and only requires changes to the library itself to be given back to community but GPL also requires anything that links to it to be GPL so you can't even use it as a library in non-open source projects.