On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 04:01:04PM -0600, Chris Spencer wrote: > On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 14:46, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > All true, but the last, if the product is made _publicly_ available, > > like RHEL3, Progeny update services etc. > > It's not _publicly_ available. They only owe source code to those > people that have purchased it. And to any people that have received copies from any of them. Sorry, let me rephrase (I am not a lawyer, and neither speaks me as one ;): If it is _offered_ in _public_, as opposed to doing contract work for instance. Modifying a GPL program for a single company is O.K., offering these modifications to an anonymous customer requires offering the source code to "all third parties". > The people that have done so are free to give that source code away but > they have no promise to subsequent binary releases. > > No law or license says you have to do business with someone. The GPL does in this sense. If you offer GPLed binaries to more than a specific customer, you need to offer source code to everybody asking for it (without interrogating him where he got it, free copying is one of the main aspects of the GPL). > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html > > No where here does it say what you claim. > > In fact it says: > The GPL says that modified versions, if released, must be "licensed ... > to all third parties." Who are these third parties? > > Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to > all third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means absolutely > everyone--but this does not require you to *do* anything physically for > them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for > your version. You have at least to commit yourself for three years in writing, that you will ship the source code to anyone interested. So anyone is entitled to the source code. Check http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCWhatDoesWrittenOfferValid > What does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does > that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed > program no matter what? > "Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is > entitled to take you up on it. [...] On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 04:01:04PM -0600, Chris Spencer wrote: > Eventually you may have to give the source out but you can legally delay > that process enough to make sure that anyone using updates not obtained > from you are vulnerable for awhile. Yes, you can do all sort of legal tricks, even claiming the GPL is not conforming with the fundamental US laws, or possibly the human rights ;) Let's not go SCO ;) > The point here again is these companies are playing nice and if enough > people erode enough of the money they will stop playing nice. They are > under no obligation, although unlike the entertainment industry they > don't want to harass their customers. > > and again...people that want free updates ought to be contributing to > the process. This is the place to do that. Argeed, but the GPL is the wrong tool to enforce this, it is reversing its purpose of freedom. Accroding to the GPL you need to make the source code available in some adequate channel. Anyway, maybe this is becoming OT and better discussed in presence of GPL experts like the GNU lists. The point is, that the GPL business models work over services, and Red Hat and Progeny have done well with it. Asking for not torpedoing these services/companies is a non-legal issue (nevertheless valid from an economic/moral POV). -- Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
pgp00195.pgp
Description: PGP signature
