GPL: Does a conveyor's violation result in rights to users? E.g. Assume a user receives a binary-only copy of the firmware bundled with a hardware device based on a GPL'd OS (no source or offer of source is provided). Does the GPL give the user the right (or for other reasons does the user now have the right) to provide or obtain newer versions of the GPL'd firmware that the vendor sells (e.g. to or from another client)? i.e. does it give anyone holding a binary copy the right to distribute it for free to users denied the source that is their right to receive? From a moral standpoint, it's well- justified, IMO, but I'm also asking from a legal standpoint. AFAIK, the license does not address the issue directly. Perhaps there's case law that does. (Then again, I don't recall that there's any case law establishing clickwrap licenses as binding at all...)
Anyone aware of discussion as to whether the GPLv3 should (or could) make a user entitled to do this? I imagine it would be difficult to craft license language allowing this that didn't end up allowing nefarious folks to distribute free software unfreely. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss