🚀 go-pugleaf

Isaac wrote:
> So in other words, you must distribute or give the binaries to someone else
> in order to trigger the provide source code or an offer clause.

You don't need to "trigger" the clause.  It is there and always in effect. 
There is no event that "activates" it.  It could be written with some sort of
"trigger" language, but it isn't.  It is written as an affermative requirement
that copies of the executable must be accompanied by the right to
redistribute, and either the source code itself or the right obtain the source
code.

> Simply
> copying it but not giving it to others doesn't require such action, and as
> far as I can see, any other responsibility.

The responisbility is to see that either the source code or right to obtain
such, "accompanies" the copies of the executable.

> Even if you don't have the source code, and I'm sure lots of linux users
> don't have the source code for all the executables they use, you don't have
> to go fetch the source code in order to give yourself permission to copy
> binaries on your own computer.

All these users have the right to obtain and redistribute the source code. 
That right "accompanies" any copies of the executables they make.  The actual
source code doesn't need to "accompany."  Either the source code itself or the
right to obtain it is sufficient to satisfy GPL.  There is no problem here.

> You most certainly can separate them.   There are plenty of reasons to copy
> that are not fair use and are not distribution.  If I buy a linux disk
> and install it on every computer I own at my house, I copy but do not
> distribute.  Until I distribute, I needn't worry about the source code
> accompanying binary clause.

You don't need to worry about it because the right to obtain and redistribute
the source code already accompanies those copies.  But under an NDA
environment, it doesn't, because copies are being made but the right to obtain
and redistribute source is being withheld.  There is a conflict here.