|
What GPL means, if GPLed code was not GPLed anymore?
Please do not try to modify what GPL means. Please read the
preamble http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html which stated
very clearly that GPL is "to make sure the software is free for
all its users". It did not say only to paid users. It is a simple
fact that you got it for free at the first place, you will have
to maintain it free to ALL others. Not because you modified
it then it will be only free to few paid ones. If GPLed code
becomes only free to few paid ones, then who is going to
pay the original authors? That is a violation to GPL.
At 03:06 PM 4/16/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>The thing you must keep in mind is this: You only have an obligation to
>those entities you have entered into a contract with.
>
>The language used in the GPL is language to be understood in a court of
>law. The law understands that you only have an obligation where there is a
>contract.
>
>Any joe off of the street can walk up to you and demand source code,
>money, your pocketwatch, etc... But unless you have some sort of contract
>with them, then they have no standing in court by which to demand this.
>Any other method of taking said items amounts to "robbery". Just because
>your code is GPL doesn't change this. You never have the obligation to
>give your source to any old joe off of the street.
>
>BUT, by distributing GPL code, you have created a contract situation. You
>have the legal obligation to uphold the GPL with everybody you distribute
>your binaries to. So, if above mentioned Joe manages to legally obtain
>_your_ binaries, then you have an obligation to him to give him source
>code.
>
>So, my point stands. You can sell your binaries for $1 million. You just
>have to tell everybody that you sell them to that they are GPL. You must
>provide them source code if they request it, and they can turn around and
>give them away for free, if they wish.
>
>But, just to totally belabor the point, You sell your binaries to (B) for
>$1million. (B) requests source and gives source away to all comers. (C)
>obtains source from (B). You have no contractual obligation to (C) because
>he did not get his binaries from you.
>
>--
>Michael
>
>On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Paul Lantinga wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>> > >> Joe Shmoe off the street has no right to ask for your
>> > GPL'd code unless he
>> > >> has also gotten (or paid for, as the case may be) a binary
>> > from you.
>> > >
>> > >This may be true, but once someone has a copy of the source they may
>> > >redistribute it as they please, including handing a copy
>> > over to Joe Shmoe.
>> > >
>> > >--
>> > >Horms
>> > >
>> >
>> > Under the GPL, section 2, subsection 3, second paragraph, it stated:
>> > "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish,
>> > that in whole
>> > or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
>> > part thereof, to
>> > be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
>> > under the terms of
>> > this License"
>> >
>> > It stated the ALL third parties. It did not say that only
>> > give to the party
>> > who received the binaries.
>>
>> Hmmm, I think an email to FSF is in order to clear this up, b/c it is an
>> important distinction. As to the rest of this email: I make no claims
>> as to having any legal skills nor do I claim this to be legal advice.
>>
>> Paragraph four of the GPL preamble states:
>> "For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
>> gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
>> you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
>> source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
>> rights."
>>
>> So, what is not clearly given, IMHO, is a specific definition of the
>> term 'third party' or 'third parties' as found in sections 2b, 3b, 3,
>> and 6. Here's my logic on this:
>>
>> Legal mumbo jumbo generally refers to specific parties such as 'you',
>> 'the company' 'we', etc. Here, this might mean a company that has
>> modified gpl'd code and sold this package to a client for $. The
>> license could then mean that for ALL customers to whom you sell your
>> package, you must inform them of the gpl licensing (section 3) and make
>> the code available to them if requested. To me, it seems fairly clear
>> that the license is dealing with the interaction between the receiver
>> and the giver only. If you control who you give to, you only need make
>> source code available to those to whom YOU give it.
>>
>> but then again... I'm not a lawyer, so maybe not. ;)
>>
>> The FSF should be consulted.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Paul L.
>> [I'm NOT speaking on behalf of my company with respect to this topic.]
>>
>>
>
>--
>Michael E. Brown, RHCE, MCSE+I, CNA
>Dell Linux Solutions
>http://www.dell.com/linux
>
> If each of us have one object, and we exchange them,
> then each of us still has one object.
> If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them,
> then each of us now has two ideas.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
|
