ms-nospam-0306 at arcor.de
Sat Oct 4 04:30:35 UTC 2003
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 03 Oct 2003 19:28:12 -0600, Bill Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 17:05, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > On 03 Oct 2003 16:48:19 -0600, Bill Anderson wrote:
> > > > > > > You must make available the source code _only_ to the party which
> > > > > > > gets the binary portion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unless you ship only the binaries, in which case they must accompany a
> > > > > > written offer to provide the sources to any third party.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cite please.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
> > >
> > > That is not in accordance with what was claimed. Note that the
> > > reference indicates parties who received a copy of the work.
> > That is what I referred to with what is quoted at the top. When I ship
> > only binaries to a person, the duty to make available the source code
> > is not transferred to the person. That's the purpose of the written
> > offer.
> But the offer is to a person who *receives the work*, not just *anyone*.
Bill, I've left the quote complete, but you can look up my initial
comment here in its entirety:
Extend it to your liking with specific scenarios such as A gives binary
to B and examples like that, if you feel it's necessary.
Any third party can request the source code when it receives the
binaries (!) and the written offer to receive source code. If Alexandre
Oliva meant something different, it would endanger the model of
commercial/licenced GPL'ed software, since anyone could request the
source code without aquiring the commercial product in a legal way.
Needless to say, someone, who would acquire commercial/licenced GPL'ed
product and then would make available the source code in a public place,
is a problem.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the users