I noticed this afternoon that GoG is now repackaging Warsow for Windows and OS/X. I've played this game off and on for years on my Linux boxes and have enjoyed it, so I am glad to see it being introduced to a broader audience.

However, I didn't see anything on the web page devoted to Warsow about where to download the source code for the game. As it is released only under the GPL, this would require GoG to offer supply the source code to everyone who downloads the installer. Is that offer included as part of the installer?

TIA

Seriously?

That OP should be shoved into the GOG's team face anytime someone asks for Linux support on here.

...

I shouldn't even bother with a reply. Not sure if troll.

Not sure if the replies are serious. OP mentioned a valid concern.

Im not sure ( cause i never have looked into it that much ), but are not only the developers who are using parts of software counted into this part?
And somehow i doubt that only a change of the installer ( i guess that even the originalfile without the gog installer does not have one which is released under gpl etc. ) would trigger this ( otherwise every single downloadsite on which you can get free software should have to provide sourcecodes )

There are other GPL games here which the sources haven't been published for, not just Warsow (Arx Fatalis, for example).

That said, I thought the requirement to publish sources was only if you were making modifications to the sources that were GPL'd. If you changed those files/sources, you then had to publish your diffs, not necessarily a full source release. Requiring distributors to publish the sources with an unmodified binary release seems like it would be fairly burdensome, especially if you consider the size of many game source trees.

Also, how is "available" defined? If you emailed GOG and asked for a source tarball, which they then provided, would that meet the requirement? My understanding is that under parts of the GPL, that is sufficient.

I could, of course, be mistaken. I'm not an attorney and my understanding is the GPL can be really ambiguous. This was the interpretation that an organization I worked for took towards the code they modified that was GPL'd, but again, I was fairly divorced from that process and let the legal people handle it. We were also dealing with GPLv2.

At OP, I'd be surprised if GOG made modifications that would require distribution. If they are distributing unaltered downstream code then you should (I believe) be able to get it from the Warsow project directly. The GPL primarily governs distribution, so the providing source requirement is on whoever distributes altered code. If a developer makes some changes but keeps them to himself, he is not required under the GPL to release his changes since he is not distributing them. I doubt they even changed the installer iso that it links with Warsow in such a way that would require any installer code from GOG. I don't think GOG owes any new code. You're pretty much spot on. The only thing I'm not sure of is whether they have GPL obligations for games like Arx Fatalis. If they are using the retail version of the code, before it was open sourced then they have no obligation, since licenses cannot be applied retroactively like that. Again, I don't know what GOG is using so I can't speak to this for certain.

I've understood, that while any changed code in GPL has to be shared, the company actually isn't required to keep a huge download button anywhere. Only thing that matters is, that if someone happens to ask the source code it must be provided, be that by DL or on actual DVD copy of the code.

Edit for above post, I meant upstream but said downstream. I'd edit it but with the page breaks being broken, it's a huge PITA.

Under GPL you have to provide the source code. So either it must be included in the download or as a goodie or at least a link to it must be found somewhere. If not than it is illegal.

Or provide an offer, valid for 3 years, to provide the source on request. Or negotiate for another licence. Knowing GOG, they probably negotiated. I don't know of any time that they have distributed a game without the rights-holders' permission, even when it would be legal to do so.

FTFY

This.

Let's note, GOG only has to make an offer to provide source code (and follow through if said request is made), if they've made no modifications they're free to point you to the official source code distribution.

Again, it only has to contain an offer, which can be stuck in the game's README.
This is incorrect, an offer must be made, and if someone takes up the offer then GOG must provide a way for them to obtain said source code. If GOG has made no modifications the main source code repo will do.
This could be the case as well, dual licensed software is common in the GPL world, if you own (i.e. have solely written or been assigned the copyright for those parts you did not write) the copyright on an entire work you are free to offer it under another license to any party you wish. This is often done for large sums of money that are then used to extend the main branch for everyone else.

Only if you change the source code. If there's no source changes than just telling people to go to the developer's website is fine. And they don't even really have to do that until asked.