Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751255AbWIBR5M (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Sep 2006 13:57:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751262AbWIBR5M (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Sep 2006 13:57:12 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:62943 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751255AbWIBR5L (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Sep 2006 13:57:11 -0400 Subject: RE: Possible gpl problem? From: David Woodhouse To: davids@webmaster.com Cc: "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 10:55:31 -0700 Message-Id: <1157219732.2473.51.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 (2.6.3-1.fc5.5.dwmw2.1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2896 Lines: 65 On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 22:54 -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > So the purpose of the "any third party" requirement is to make sure that > someone who receives a copy of the offer from a redistributor can acquire > the source code. It's not so that someone who never received any > distribution at all can acquire the source code. I see. So your claim is that when it says "any third party" it doesn't actually mean "any third party". > > It doesn't say "any third party who is in possession of a copy of the > > binary and has a verbatim copy of the original written offer of source". > > It just says "any third party". > > What would be the point of accompanying it with the information regarding > the offer if that information served no purpose whatsoever? How could you > enforce an offer when you had no knowledge of who was making the offer and > what its terms were? That seems like both question and answer to me; I think you're confusing yourself. The "information regarding the offer" is precisely that knowledge about whom to contact to ask for the source. The point in accompanying redistributed binaries with that information is so that the recipient of the binaries knows how to obtain the source code. That works because "any third party" has a right to approach the original distributor and ask for the sources. Of course, that third party does need to _know_ that the source is there for the asking -- that's why the GPL specifies that the information has to be passed on to subsequent recipients of the binaries. But that doesn't mean that the original distributor is only required to provide source to those who've received binaries -- the GPL says "any third party". It's entirely possible for a someone to be entitled to something without actually being _aware_ of the fact. Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that that is not possible, as well as a creative misinterpretation of the fairly unambiguous phrase "any third party". You keep talking about enforcement, strangely -- as if a right cannot exist without the direct ability to enforce it. Many people seem to believe that the only people who can _enforce_ the GPL are those who hold copyright in the original source; whose work was used by the party who is now refusing to provide their modified sources. By your logic, if a right cannot exist without the ability to enforce it, the only people who are entitled to receive source are the original copyright-holders -- not even the direct recipients of the binaries, since they are not in a position to _enforce_ the GPL. That just doesn't make any sense. -- dwmw2 -- VGER BF report: U 0.49756 - 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/