[Simh] Pontus asks Is [the] BSD [license] liberal enough?

[David Brownlee]

On 8 June 2015 at 12:36, Pontus Pihlgren <pontus at update.uu.se> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 01:24:39PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
>>
>> Which is essentially anyone. Since, if you do release it, you cannot
>> restrict who can use it.
>
> The point I'm trying to make is that B has no obligation to anyone but
> C. If C starts to make the software available no-one can demand the
> source from B. And certainly not from A.

GPLv2 states:

2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.

That seems to me that if I "A" distribute or publish anything which
includes any GPL code, to anyone "B", then I have to make the entire
product available to any third party "C".

It is my understanding that GPLv3 and AGPLv3 are intended to close the
loophole where someone could use GPL code to provide a service, but
since they never released or published any product in the traditional
sense they would have been able to evade the spirit of GPLv2, which
makes the licence even more effective at its goals.