On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 19:05:58 -0700, Bruce wrote in message <[email protected]>:
> It's a fun fantasy, Arnt, but don't try it. > > When you start trying to directly enforce upon some insurance > salesman who makes a casual sale of his motor vehicle and knows > nothing of the source code in it, ..he's covered by GPLv2's §3c. Now, what happens when he is a second hand automobile vendor, §3c no longer applies, so he's stuck with §3a or §3b. > you just give us a bad reputation and send the common people > to their congressman with complaints of copyright abuse. ..to trick common people into cover up e.g. GM's own abuses, common trap to fall into, so I agree it's better to discuss it here first. ;o) > So, instead you should tell the automotive parts manufacturer that > they have to keep source code available for 20 years, because they > are the only ones who can reasonably fulfill the source code > distribution responsibilities of the ...non-commercial owners, agreed. Profiting from fixing and shining up your ride as an hobby before you sell it again, is still non-commercial. ..this hobby ofcourse may develop into a commercial business at some stage, and that stage should support full time staff from the profits made IMO, but this depends on the jurisdictions. > vehicle owners. ..and, some automobile vendors accept 2'hand cars as part or full payment for their goods as part of their own commerce, and _these_ commercial parties can reasonably be expected to offer and deliver source code under §3b and §3a, and I, as an "end user" of my ride, should not have to worry about how my vendor satisfies his source code obligations to me, all I should care about, is getting the source code from him once I ask. -- ..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.
