On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:18:48PM +0200, Marc Dietrich wrote: > Am Mittwoch 16 April 2014, 19:08:18 schrieb Bradley M. Kuhn:
> > I'm sorry that this thread has been so distracting on this issue. The goal > > of the GPL is to give certain freedoms to end-users, indeed. However, the > > primary legal mechanism it uses underneath is copyright, and as such the > > most traditional way and more or less the only successful way so far the > > license has been enforced has been through copyright holders acting on > > their rights. Take a look at GPLv2 Section 4 for the central provision on > > how this works. You also might want to read the book I wrote much of it and > > am the primary editor of: > > http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/articles/comprehensive-gpl-guide.pdf > > I'm sorry that I'm likely not motivated enough to read through all this. But > maybe just a small question you may have an answer to (sorry, I'm again too > lazy to google it myself). Does the GPLv3 helps with with problem? You mean does GPLv3 address the issue I believe you are raising, which is the presumed reservation of an enforcement remedy for a GPLv2 violation in the copyright holder? No, it doesn't. The interpretation of GPLv2 and GPLv3 should be in harmony in this respect. Thus if there's some theory under which one could argue that a downstream licensee has a legal remedy against a GPL-violating distributor, it should apply equally to GPLv2 and GPLv3. If there's some theory why this should *not* be possible, it should apply equally to GPLv2 and GPLv3. Also, don't misunderstand me -- this is not *inherent* to the GPL as some sort of abstract thing. I can envision various ways in which a hypothetical GNU GPLv4 could be drafted to make weak or strong attempts to ensure that downstream users have legal remedies to enforce the source code requirements of the GPL. These might come at a cost which might be seen as undesirable. But that's for the FSF of the future to decide. - Richard
