Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 23:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: ahorn@deorth.org
To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
cc: Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Dell vs. GPL
In-Reply-To: <MDEHLPKNGKAHNMBLJOLKOEHCEAAA.davids@webmaster.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.44.0306292354100.7687-100000@slick.sigje.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1519
Lines: 42


On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, David Schwartz wrote:

>	There are sections of the GPL that specifically state that those who
>receive copies of covered works are intended beneficiaries. Like this
>section:
>
>"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
>gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
>you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
>source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
>rights."
>
>	It is quote clear that this entitlement is specifically intended to benefit
>the recipients and not to benefit the copyright holder.

I interpret this to mean 'distribute a copy of the GPL with all
distributions of the source code, and make sure that it's followed', kind
of a recursive inheritance thing...

I'm still not seeing any evidence of anyone being blocked from obtaining
the source code (although I haven't followed the whole thread)

I repeat, did anyone ask dell for source code for this supposed violation?
They are not bound to _distribute_ the source code with their software
only to make it available in a reasonable fashion upon request.

Or am I missing something here ?

(not being argumentative here by the way, this is really interesting
discussion)

Cheers,

Al


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/