Re: [linux-audio-dev] [OT] Linux, audio and the breach of GPL

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] [OT] Linux, audio and the breach of GPL
From: Marek Peteraj (marpet_AT_naex.sk)
Date: Sat Apr 10 2004 - 20:44:00 EEST


On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 12:58, will_AT_malefactor.org wrote:
> 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 :)

In some cases this is really sufficient.

>
> 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).

Depends on who is someone. :)

> Of course, I wouldn't put it
> past Stallman, but it seems way too screwy...

Actually the more i look at the GPL the more is think that it's a very
cool lincense that indeed does its job in protecting opensource
developers.

Marek


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Apr 10 2004 - 18:36:22 EEST