Lets suppose what you say here is correct (it is not). Wouldn't that make it copyright infringement to make a copy of say an Ubuntu CD for a friend- since you are only redistributing binaries without source?
My understanding was that binary distribution was separate, and that GPL simply meant you could get the source for a binary you had acquired legally.
Not could, you have to provide the source if you were asked for it. Think about it like a point to point licence. You can get the binary only, but if you request the source the one who gave the binary to you must provide the source to you. To stay GPL conform you have to provide this service to anyone you are giving the binary. If you can't or don't want this you are violating the GPL.
The way how you provide the source is not defined. For professional distrubutions you could easily point to the source repositories. I don't know what happens if the one who is requesting the source tells you that he have no internet access, i think you have to provide the source on another path to stay GPL conform.
This is the main purpose of the GPL, protect the availability of the source code.
That's what made commercial GPL software a little more viable in my mind: while anyone could buy the software, recompile the source, and distribute that binary, it was a necessary stumbling block to prevent direct copying of the original.
Commercial usage of GPL programms is possible, but difficult. If you remind the GPL as a point to point licence, you could sell your GPL work 'one time only'. You must deliver the source and your buyer has the same GPL distrubution rights and could legally publish it for free to anyone, which means you can't sell it anymore because the people can get it for free.
This is theoretical because developers of good software still get donations after the release. I didn't see a part of the GPL that you have to give away the code changes you did on GPL code, but if you give, you must give the your source too.
only if someone is nice enough to send it you in private.
No need to go in private for that : this is completely legal
Only if the source is included in that PND files. If you give away GPL software, you must provide the source.
We now have the funny situation where the spied usernames are going to be useful for StreaK. In accordance with the GPL he must provide the source of his published GPL ports. Being bound to the point to point licence he has to provide the source to all downloaders of the specific PNDs. He could ask for your username and crosscheck with the download logfiles. If your username doesn't match he could say 'sorry, i didn't gave you anything, we have no contract nor buisiness nor licence'. But anybody who did the download has a right for the source - and the GPL license to do what the GPL grants, redistribution.
Any volunteers here asking StreaK for the source?
