thufir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >To my understanding, the buyer does have the right, under the GPL, to >the source. After, the GPL is targeted, you could say, at buyers to >protect copyright owners.
>If no buyer has rights to the source, then that would make the GPL >pointless, which, I suppose is your argument? "Rights to the source" is not a useful phrase, as it does not distinguish between the right to ask for the source (which the buyer has), the right to redistribute the source once the source is available (which the buyer has), and the right to enforce the seller's obligation to provide the source (which the copyright owner has but the buyer does not). -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
