[dedward]

If they distribute a copy of the source at the same time they send you the binaries (in this case, the car) - then they have no further obligation to distribute the code. They don't have to maintain an online repository, nor worry about who is entitled to what version of the code.

Under GPL, you are only entitled to the source of the binaries you are given.

[tzs]

That raises the question of what happens with used cars?

Suppose Alice the Accountant buys a car and it comes with a CD containing the full source for all the GPL software used in the car. Alice is not a programmer and loses the CD or throws it away.

Then Alice sells the car to Peter the Programmer. Peter sees that the car is using GPL software and wants the source. Is there anyone who has to provide the source to him?

The car company does not because they fully satisfied their GPL obligations with respect to the particular binaries in that car when they included the source CD.

I expect that Alice would also be off the hook. It is true that in passing the car to Peter she has distributed copyrighted GPL code (the binaries in the car), but she just passed on a copy that was lawfully made and received by her. That should be covered under the first sale doctrine [1].

We thus seem to end up with a GPL binary in the wild with no one obligated to provide the source for that binary.

I wonder if anyone has seriously considered a license that prohibits binary distributions? Processors are fast enough now and storage is cheap enough that in a lot of embedded applications it would probably be feasible to have the software stored in source form and compile it each time the system started.

[1] What the first sale doctrine says is that it is not a violation of the copyright owner's exclusive distribution right for someone who has received a lawfully made copy to pass that particular copy on to someone else.

[renonce]

I think that the fact that Alice's resell is covered under the first sale doctrine does not affect Bob's right to request from Alice the source code of the binary that he had just received. Besides, it's reasonable to expect that Alice is able to provide such a copy, so it can't be seen as a restriction on Alice's right to resell.

[tzs]

If you are doing something with GPLed software that does not require permission from the copyright holder, GPL does not apply to what you are doing.

The significance of the first sale doctrine here is that if it applies then Alice's distribution of the binary to Bob does not require permission from the copyright holder.

[fomine3]

Maybe MB just stock 100 mini CDs rather than giving/hosting source code to response GPL request.

[stubish]

Yay for landfill. On one hand this is cool. On the other, it is pointless waste and a burden on owners who technically need to pass on the CD to new owners (in working order, so make sure you make a copy in case the CD degrades kids!). And the alternative would be Mercedes needing to maintain a copy in perpetuity? The result isn't quite what we had hoped for.