----- Original Message ---- > From: Simos Xenitellis <simos.li...@googlemail.com> > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:54 PM, BRM <bm_witn...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > DISCLAIMER: IANAL. Consult one for real legal advice if you need it. > > > ... > > Party F may ask Group C for the code, showing the written notice he received > > from Customer E which matches what Group C provided to Customer E. > > > > I think your misconception arises from the fact that you consider a company > can collude with the customers and ask them to keep secret > those "written notices" they received. Without these "written > notices", a third party > would not be able to get the source code? > > It's not a "written notice"; it is a written offer by a company to > make available > the source code to anyone who asks.
I never said they were colluding. No collusion was required, and no one need deny they were providing GPL'd products. If you want, you could change out every group/party/company in that scenario to be individual people - it doesn't change a thing wrt to the GPL. It also doesn't entitle someone who has not received a copy of the product to receiving a copy of the source code. > ... > > > > I am not twisting anything, and I could have referenced several other FAQ > > entries on the FSF website as well - just chose the one most relevant - one > > explicitly stating the from the FSF's perspective that the party asking > > for >the > > source must also have the written notice. > > You are describing a company that tries to get away with the responsibilities > of the GPL by denying that they have made a written offer for the source code, > by colluding with customers not to divulge the mention of the GPL in > the said products. > So, if I go and buy one such GPL product from the company, would the company > refuse to sell me in order not to export the written offer? If you have a the GPL'd product, then you have the right to get the source. If not, you don't. If you received it second hand - e.g. indirectly - then you still have the right to the source, but you may have to show the product or written offer. > > So just b/c a company does not provide the source to everyone under the > > sun >does > > not mean they are in violation of the GPL. > > > > Note that the above situation also matches this FAQ entry: > > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid > > > > Which says: “If you choose to provide source through a written offer, > then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive > it.” > It's the opposite of what you have just said. No, it implies (or rather, another FAQ entry - I forget which off hand - states) that you need the written offer as well. So as long as you provide a copy of the written offer, they are required to provide it to you. Said written offer being acquired either directly or indirectly. > ... > > Please, if you are going to try to refute this at least quote from the FSF, > > Lessig, or SFLC to do so - they (and not 'gpl-violations.org' )are the >authors > > of the GPL. > > > > Your views are not mainstream; if you want to gain traction, you should make >the effort > to subscribe to the gpl-violations.org mailing list and discuss these views >there. Doesn't have to be mainstream. As I said - there is a very common misconception on the issue. It's not a mainstream view that GPL'd software be charged for too (people - especially GPL people - like getting stuff for free as in beer) - yet, FSF states that's perfectly acceptable to do as its not about Free as in beer (that's a good thing) but free as in speech. Ben -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
