Rob Hillis wrote:
> There is *nothing* in the GPL license to say that he *must*
> release *every* package of the software created. The source
That's correct, as I've posted myself. He isn't obligated to distribute anything (except source code to what he does distribute--which is somewhat of a moot point in the case of a PHP web app).
> > IMO, Darrell's "request" that you not redistribute the RPM
> > violates the spirit of the GPL. I suppose it doesn't violate
> > the letter, because he's not actually forbidding you to
> > distribute it, but he's attempting to induce you to refrain
> > from exercising a right which he MUST give you. IOW, he's
> > giving with one hand and taking away with the other. He has
> > neither a moral nor a legal right to do that.
>
> Not true. TWIGGI is available in source form, as required.
> Point out the clause in the GPL where it says that binaries
> or other packaged varieties of the *same* version of the
> software *must* be distributed.
I'm including my entire paragraph above because it seems you didn't read it the first time. First, if you read it this time, you'll observe that I say Darrell's request probably _doesn't_ violate the letter of the GPL. Second, you'll observe that I take no issue with his decision to not distribute the RPM freely--he's perfectly within his rights to restrict *his* distribution of the RPM however he chooses. My beef is with his "request" that recipients of the RPM from him not exercise their rights under paragraph 3 of the GPL (presuming that the RPM is released under the GPL).
In his response on this thread, Darrell mentions that the RPM contains copyrighted code, which is irrelevant--all GPL'd code is copyrighted. If there is code in the RPM which is not GPL'd (and is not required to be), then Darrell has the right to restrict its *re*distribution however he chooses--and in that case, we would all be better served if he'd simply say that redistribution of the RPM is prohibited, rather than to "request" that it not be redistributed (if that is in fact what he wants). To further avoid confusion, it'd be better if twiggi were one RPM and his proprietary code were another. Consider this language from paragraph 2 of the GPL:
If identifiable sections of that [modified--e.g., twiggi] work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections **when you distribute them as separate works**. But when you distribute the same sections **as part of a whole** which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
(Emphasis added). It looks as though this would require Darrell's new "copyrighted code" to be distributed under the GPL, as it's distributed as part of a whole (the RPM) which is a work based on the Program (TWIG in this case).