Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] [OT] Linux, audio and the breach of GPL
From: Simon Jenkins (sjenkins_AT_blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sat Apr 10 2004 - 18:08:09 EEST
Marek Peteraj wrote:
>>There's no obligation to make the object/executeable generally available.
>>
>>
>There is as the the name of the GPL implies. See my previous (longer)
>post.
>
>From your previous post:
>>> The keyword 'General Public' applies to each Section of the GPL , and
>>> you have to interpret every statement made by the GPL with respect to
>>> 'general public'.
I can find nothing in the GPL or the FAQ to substantiate this claim.
Anyway, I think you're parsing the name wrong: IMHO Its a
General(Public(Licence)) not a (General Public)Licence.
>>> The GPL also uses the term ,any third party'.
And the FAQ clarifies exactly what is meant by "third party": Under some
circumstances (ie GPL section 3c) Distributees may pass along your written
offer of source code when they pass along your binary. Your offer must
extend to these third parties (they are "parties" to the licence agreement,
btw) as well as to your original distributees.
You absolutely DO NOT have to make executeables available to the general
public when you modify a GPL program. You don't even have to make them
available to anybody at all if you dont want to. Nor, in fact, do you
even have to inform anybody that these modified versions even EXIST.
But if (and only if) you distribute an executeable, then you are obligated
to make source available to those who you distribute it to, and to "third
parties" as described above.
Simon Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Apr 10 2004 - 16:59:18 EEST