8

I am coding a new application. I would like to temporarily share it with a restricted group of persons to only have a feedback about some implemented features.

My application links against some qt (LGPL and GPL) and fftw (GPL) software packages available in the official Ubuntu repositories. Thus, I guess that it is sufficient to share a .deb package containing my binaries and data, along with the source code and a copy of the GPL license. Nevertheless, I do not really like the idea to share the source code in this phase because there are still things to clarify/improve/refine/fix.

Therefore:

  1. Is there a legal way to share with them only the .deb package (i.e., not the source code)?
  2. If yes, what specific clauses should I include (e.g.: "These binaries are intended for internal testing and evaluation only" and/or "You are not authorized to copy/distribute/commercialize this software" etc..)?
  3. If one of them asks for the source code, am I obliged to provide it?
  4. If one of them distributes/commercializes the binary against my will, am I legally liable for license infringement?
Improve this question
1
  • Limiting the use of a software by someone else to only your purposes (in this case, testing and feedback) is against the spirit of free software (since it contradicts freedom 0). You should not expect to be able to achieve this. Commented Dec 4, 2024 at 11:05

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
8

(This answer assumes that linking creates a copyright derivative, as the FSF believes it does, but note that this is an open question; see here and here for more details.)

Since you're linking to a GPL library, your entire package, when it is conveyed, must be conveyed according to the GPL.

That means you can happily give only the binary to your collaborators, but if any of them requests full source code, you must provide it. You may warn your collaborators that you would prefer to keep the software within your group for the time being, but if one of them chooses to share the software, as long as (s)he does it in accordance with the GPL, you may not forbid this.

If one of them distributes/commercializes the binary against my will, am I legally liable for license infringement?

Note that commercialisation is completely permitted by the GPL, so your collaborators are completely free to sell copies of the software. However, if they do so, they must make full source, and rights to use it under the GPL, available to all purchasers.

If they fail to do that, they will infringe your copyright, along with upstream's copyrights, and not only will you not be responsible, you will be completely entitled to sue them for copyright infringement.

Improve this answer
7
  • But it should not be understated that, as this answer says, the OP is bound by their own GPL obligations with respect to qt and fftw to make source to their own program available to any to whom they distribute it, at least on request. The OP would be in breach of their licenses to those libraries if they insisted on withholding the source to their program from anyone to whom they distributed it, so unless the OP breaches, recipients of their program would have the wherewithal to fulfill their own GPL obligations with respect to redistribution. Commented Dec 3, 2024 at 22:18
  • 2
    I believe if the copyright to OP's work is owned by a company, and said company employs these people as reviewers, then the legal situation is that the reviewers are acting as agents of the company rather than as separate individuals and thus the work hasn't been distributed to anyone else, so the GPL's requirements to distribute source code aren't triggered by this "internal" distribution "within the company". Does anyone know whether this sort of condition could also apply to the OP as a private individual if they pay for the reviewer's time? I genuinely don't know. Commented Dec 4, 2024 at 4:56
  • 3
    It could not. That situation arises within a company because of the company's legal personhood, not because of the commercial relationship. Paying a reviewer doesn't make the distribution GPL-exempt; having both you and the reviewer be employees of the same corporate entity does, because distribution is then the corporate entity passing copies around inside itself. Commented Dec 4, 2024 at 6:57
  • Narrowly, could @Ben's scenario of paying a reviewer work if the contact included some sort of NDA-style agreement? In that case they would be able, per GPL, to request sources and redistribute commercially; but be barred from exercising those right by the agreement? (I am happy to ask that as a separate Q if it would be worthwhile for the site) Commented Dec 4, 2024 at 21:33
  • 1
    I think both the question and answer immediately above are good, but please: this comments field is not the place to have the discussion. If anyone thinks there's a good, separate question here, feel free to ask it (subject to the usual preamble) - but please don't continue the discussion in this comments field. Commented Dec 5, 2024 at 7:46

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.