On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:49:13 +0000, Rahul Dhesi wrote: > 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).
The buyer can ask for the source but, ultimately, has now way of enforcing anybody to produce it? Seems pointless. -Thufir _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
