Re: [Gimp-developer] Reg:Usuage of the Gimp for my Organization

[Nikola M <minikola gmail com>]

On 09/18/15 07:10 PM, Gez wrote:
> I wonder if saying that the only license pertains to the source code.
> I'd say that the binaries are also covered by the license, since you
> are obligued to make the source code available when you distribute the
> binaries.

Source code is covered and source changes, if binaries are distributed.
But binaries itself can have whatever licence one wants, if source and 
source changes are available.
That is exactly what this thread is about - there is the difference.

If one wants to change binary license of it's own build, one can change 
brending and release changed source.
Every user has same power to release binaries if wants to learn building it.
That is why there is so much different Linux distros with all builded 
packages around.

But centralised development and binary releasing has it's reasons for 
sanity checks, per-patch audit, chain of trust and keeping brending 
together with the quality control in one place, to be used by many with 
confidence.

GPL requires that user of binaries be informed about their rights as 
user and rights to source and changes. So it is not enough to just 
display binary license to user.
That is because per license there are no users and developers, everyone 
has same rights. That difference is imposed by the need for centralizing 
projects and personal abilities.