Well, if I didn't it would appear some would have smoked it. I merely provided a resource for experienced GPL lawyers--folks with experience that might be able to more clearly explain this.
If he chose not to provide source with the binary, then he needs to provide source to any third party, not only to people who bought the binary. It is stated very clearly in the license, so I don't understand why you claim otherwise.
even if it were stated in the license (which it wasn't last time i checked):
the license is the legal framework which is in place between the person who received the software and the one who distributes it. it describes rights and obligations for both of them. but it cannot possibly be legally binding between the distributor and somebody who did not receive the GPLed work. it's not the law. it's a treaty. it's valid and possible for the distributor to not give you the application at all, neither binary or source, because he doesn't like your face or your name. the GPL doesn't force anyone to give you anything. only after he gave you an application, and only if the application is GPLed, you have certain rights you may enforce in court if you want to. also, you can enforce those rights in case you *contributed* to stellarium under the terms of the GPL and now find the way the whole code is distributed breaks these terms.
for all others - those who didn't buy stellarium mobile and those who didn't contribute - the whole discussion is pointless. you can't be deprived of a right you haven't been granted in the first place.
Has anybody asked for the source and been denied?
Has anybody contacted Fabien or Guillaume?
Does locating this source have more to do with compiling this ap without having to pay for it then it does with an interpretation of the license?
I don't know, but for $3 bucks I'm happy.
For £3 I'm happy too.
I've asked Ovi Store for the source, as the binaries were downloaded from their repo, but so far have received no response other than an auto-acknowledgement promising a response in 48 hours. I've bought the software in question, so I'm not motivated to get it for free, and have no intention of passing the source on to anyone else if and when Ovi Store provide it.
I'm curious to know why Ovi are apparently distributing GPL'd code without satisfying the licence conditions. Perhaps they believe that the Ovi Store T&Cs negate their GPL obligations. Perhaps they do. IANAL.
You are right in the fact that only the copyright owner who can sue in court in case of GPL violation.
But it is amazing that you managed to get a fact right.
The GPL did not require providing source to any third party, last time you read it? Really? Did you actually read it? Did you manage to get as far as paragraph 3b, quoted just a few posts upthread?
I think the licence page for Busybox gives a good comprehendable perspective on how those distributing GPL'd (v2 at least) code should behave, and how they should be fairly treated.
