Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] [OT] Linux, audio and the breach of GPL
From: Simon Jenkins (sjenkins_AT_blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sun Apr 11 2004 - 06:53:53 EEST
Marek Peteraj wrote:
>On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 21:01, Simon Jenkins wrote:
>
>
>>Marek Peteraj wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 19:42, Simon Jenkins wrote:
>>> will_AT_malefactor.org wrote:
>>>
>>>>>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).
>>>>>
>>>>True. Just that one person.
>>>>
>>>That's what i meant by describing the extent to which the 'general
>>>public' rule applies.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>It might be what you meant... but it flatly contradicts what you *said*.
>>
>>
>
>I fail to see where, could you tell me? :)
>
>Marek
>
Oh, erm... somewhere in here...
>"For example, you may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a
>copy, in which case you'd normally restrict access to those who pay. In
>that case you're obliged to put a general public notice that _any_ third
>party, which intends to pay a fee, will do so for the physical act of
>transferring a copy of GPLed software, which is being distributed in
>form of machine readable source-code or as an object or executable form."
>
[ _underlining_ yours]
..."obliged to put a general public notice"...??? I don't think so: If
I give source
code to those who pay then I'm done, finished, obligations discharged.
If I give
them a written offer of source code instead then _some_ third parties
may also
be entitled to the written offer: But even then its *not my
responsibility to make
them aware of the offer*! Its the re-distributors obligation to pass
along my
written offer, if that's what they received from me. All I've got to do
is honour
it if someone (/to whom it was passed along/) takes it up.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Apr 11 2004 - 05:48:01 EEST