Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> They just aren't distributing the source for free, it seems, but you are free to redistribute it however you'd like.

Yes, that was my point. I will know the license when I see it in the distributed code :)



But it's still open source!

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

> If I distribute GPLed software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?

> No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.


But they are distributing binaries of the game to the public for free[1] -- the text you quoted describes the exact opposite situation to what is happening. In this particular case you cannot charge separately for source code under the GPLv3 -- see section 6(d).

Of course, if they are the sole copyright holder, they can dual-license things under a GPL and proprietary license (which is effectively what they are doing here -- the DogWalk binaries available from the linked page are not GPLv3 binaries because they are not following the GPLv3 requirements). But this situation is absolutely not permitted under the GPLv3. Otherwise a company could fork a GPL'd project and just avoid releasing GPL'd source code by charging $1B for the source code.

[1]: https://studio.blender.org/projects/dogwalk/gallery/?asset=8...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: