Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] [OT] Linux, audio and the breach of GPL
From: will_AT_malefactor.org
Date: Sat Apr 10 2004 - 13:58:27 EEST
On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 04:08:09PM +0100, Simon Jenkins wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
Nobody had a problem with Native Instruments just packaging the sources
on a CD with Final Scratch: http://eca.cx/lad/2003/11/0010.html :)
IANAL, but I'm 99% sure that when you give someone a GPLd executable,
you're only obligated to provide that one person with the sources, not the
"general public" (read: everyone on earth). Of course, I wouldn't put it
past Stallman, but it seems way too screwy...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Apr 10 2004 - 17:53:17 EEST