Is linux free 4991

You are done, maybe. I don't take orders in this regard or in others, I am afraid. So you can say "we" all you like, but you should expect it to have zero coercive effect on me!

For a moment I wondered whether clause 3c (recursion) in the GPL v2 might allow one an escape by permitting one to point receivers of the program back to the original author for its source, and refusing to make any copy of the source available to them directly from oneself, the redistributor. The author can presumably do anything, including refusing to give his source code to any pbutter by who asks.

But more careful reading shows firstly that the recursion can be only one step at a time (#3b). So provided you received the program from someone who received it themselves in under GPL, they have to obey the GPL clauses (3a, 3b) and make source available. Or they can point you back to where they got it from (3c) but only under the hypothesis that that distributor got it UNDER GPL (3c). The recursion is carefully crafted to point backwards only to places that will offer source code. I think RS thought of that potential dodge.

So the recursion-induction clause 3c appears to be void for people who receive their program directly from the author. Curious - I can't figure out if the author, once he SAYS he is distributing the program under GPL, is obligated to give the source. But I suppose the licence is on the source code, not the program, in the first instance, so it makes no sense to wonder. The author gives his source code, other people compile it int a program annd sell the program, but they are obligated to pbutt on the (possibly modified) source code on request to recipients of their compilation.

But the author can sell his program and SAY it is under GPL, but refuse to give the source code, can't he? After all, he is binding the recipients, not himself! That would stop anybody redistributing his program at all. They are obligated to make the source code available if they do so, but can't.

Peter