On Fri, 9 Aug 2013 21:32:11 +0100, Neil wrote in message <[email protected]>:
> > On 9 Aug 2013, at 18:50, Arnt Karlsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Evening, Arnt > > > ..I see no difference selling brand new and 2'nd hand stuff > > under the GPLv2 > > My interpretation would be that, in a second hand sale of a piece of > hardware with embedded software, the act of resale does not > constitute an act restricted by copyright, and so there is no need > for a licence, so whatever the GPL might, or might not, say is > immaterial. ..I disagree, and ยง3c solves this for non-commercial resales, gifts etc by giving that license. If you picked it up legally, you will have access to the paperwork containing the written offer on source, or the source itself, and you just pass it all on with the hardware containing the software. > The GPL, as you say, does not make such a distinction, but I don't > think it needs to: this is an issue of copyright law, and whether a > licence is required, rather than a term of the licence itself. > > > Neil > > __________ > > Neil Brown > [email protected] | http://neilzone.co.uk > > > -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.
