I have a fancy software "foo" that may be considered the derivative work of a GPLv3 library. "foo" is GPLv3 itself.
- Example 1: I install the foo binary on my company's laptop, go to a customer's premise, run the software in front of them and let them interact with the graphical interface of foo. Sounds like I'm not propagating nor conveying according to GPLv3, so no need to bring up the source code. Correct?
- Example 2: Now, let's say I leave the same laptop to the customer premise, for them to use and evaluate for the next few weeks. The foo binary starts at boot. The customer can interact with the GUI, but doesn't have direct access to the binary, nor the source code itself obviously. Still no conveying, right?
- Example 3: Same as above, but now they also have a user account to the laptop and a shell, where they could in principle touch and copy the foo binary. Would this become "conveying", so the source code provision of GPL kicks in?
I know the answer of this question is to get an attorney, but I'm just trying to have a good understanding of terminology and legal precedents, and where the line is typically drawn, based on previous experiences and other people opinions.