On 12/14/2013 01:18 PM, Robinson Tryon wrote:
This creates a situation in which the original owner of the car may
enjoy the 4 Freedoms of Free Software, but subsequent owners and
operators of the car may not. So even if you have a piece of hardware
in your car containing GPLed software, you might have no standing to
request the source. Blarg. --R * I'm sure there's some neat Latin term
for this -- lawyers: clue me in? :-)
Several issues.
Talking for the moment of GPLv2, and noting I'm not a lawyer.
Assuming for the moment that source code is not provided at any point
along with the car.
This would be the best way - for example the code is downloadable if the
user sticks in a USB stick.
If the code was originally GPLd, then each recipient gets a fresh
licence, so they have the right to use the
code without issue.
The position if you go to resell the car is interesting.
Assuming everyone is acting in good faith.
Alice buys the last car of a model from the manufacturer, and sells it
to Bob after three years.
A year after purchase, Bob wants to hack it, so requests the source from
Alice.
Bob doesn't have the source, nor does Alice, and it's been over three
years since the car came off the
production line and the manufacturer ceased production immediately
afterwards.
The maker has complied with their requirements with a written offer of
source, there is no requirement
for them to provide source, as it's been three years.
They have no obligations to anyone anymore.
Alice when she sold the car must have (in order to comply with the
licence) accompany it with a _fresh_
written offer - from her - valid for three years. She cannot simply pass
on the makers written offer, as she
sold the car - the transaction was commercial.
If she either does not provide a written offer or source, then she
cannot legally sell the car.
Bob has no legal avenue to request the source from anyone, if Alice
cannot provide it.
Bob - under clause 6 of the GPLv2 has a fresh license from the original
vendor - so he can legally use the
car, but not legally sell it.
Bob is screwed.
Alices position is more interesting.
Assuming she was acting in good faith belief that the car vendor would
provide the source at a later date
, or even if she had downloaded the source, and placed it on a USB stick
and kept it in a drawer, but her dog ate it - she may have intended to
comply with the license.
She has been negligent in her duties under the GPL, and she has in fact
not complied with the license,
and may in principle face a civil action from Bob - who cannot legally
sell the car he's bought.
She could also face possible criminal charges for copyright violation -
this seems vanishingly unlikely.
