Quoting Bruce Perens <[email protected]>:

Bad example, but, let's say someone requests something that I did 2 years ago, and I no longer support it. In order to get the source, I have to get it from off site storage, restore it, and then get it to you. If that happens to take me a few weeks, I wouldn't think it was unreasonable.

Imagine a film company waiting patiently in court until you could find the right files to cure an infringement of their property.

The key difference, to my mind, in these two examples, is that, in Bruce's example, there is an already-established "infringement of their property", whereas, in Thomas' there is not yet an established infringement. That is the very question at the heart of the discussion, as I understand it: if I make a written offer, how long do I have to supply the source code before my failure to do so would be interpreted as a failure to comply with the conditions of GNU GPL 2.0, such that, by failing to comply with the licence terms, my distribution infringes copyright?

I am not sure that the two situations above are analagous.

However (and I am musing now), this discussion presupposes that failure to provide the source code *does* lead to copyright infringement.

The requirement of GNU GPL 2.0, s3(b), is that Company A, which is distributing a product containing covered code, must, if using the "written offer" route, accompany distribution of the binary with a written offer.

Let us assume that Company A has included a written offer with their product, saying "Company A will give the complete corresponding source code for $product to any third party seeking it, for $1. Contact $address".

Company A has satisfied its obligation under the licence: it has made a written offer.

With what section of the licence does Company A fail to comply if it does not subsequently send the source code to someone asking for it?

Or would the requesting party need to establish some sort of direct relationship by virtue of Company A having made an offer, such as breach of contract?



Neil


--


Neil Brown

[email protected] | http://neilzone.co.uk


Reply via email to