Is it possible to tack on a clause to GPL to only allow distribution of source, not compiled binaries?

Question

As a follow up to my previous question, and as an extension to this question, Is it possible to take GPL and add the restriction that distribution is limited to source files and not compiled version for both the original and derived works? In the same way that you can use GPL programs internally as long as they're not distributed, you can modify and redistribute the source, and compile for internal/personal use, but not distribute it, and then also have this effect be viral like GPL?

Furthermore, if the above is possible, could I just add such a clause to say the project description in Google Code after selecting GPL?

Edit: ceejayoz's answer suggests and I'm inclined to agree that it would not be ok to do that on Google Code. Are there any online source hosts that support modified licenses?

Answer 1

Yes, you can modify the GPL - you just can't call it the GPL any more.

No, I don't believe Google Code would approve of you picking 'GPL' from the list. They only wish to host code that complies exactly with their supported licenses.

Answer 2

Is it possible to take GPL and add the restriction

No, in general you can't add restrictions to GPL (without it ceasing to be GPL).

But if the work is wholly your own, you can have a dual-licence, releasing your own binaries under a commercial-off-the-shelf-style licence whilst still having the source as GPL. This is what eg. XChat does with its paud Windows builds.

But you can't stop someone else compiling and redistributing the source themselves (like Silverex do with XChat). The trick is to provide added support that makes people want to stay with the ‘official’ build.

Answer 3

As ceejayoz wrote: "Yes, you can modify the GPL - you just can't call it the GPL any more."

But, please bear in mind that a license which prohibits distribution of binaries is no longer accepted as an Open Source / Free Software license!

The freedom to distribute binaries is a central concept of Open Source / Free Software.

The Free Software Definition of the GNU project explains why:

Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.

The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them.

Both the Open Source Definition and the Debian Free Software Guidelines state:

2. The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.

As far as I know, Google Code is for Open Source projects only. Therefore I guess they won't even accept projects which would use such a license.