Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)


On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:54 PM, BRM <bm_witness@yahoo.com> wrote:
DISCLAIMER: IANAL. Consult one for real legal advice if you need it.

...
Party F may ask Group C for the code, showing the written notice he received
from Customer E which matches what Group C provided to Customer E.


I think your misconception arises from the fact that you consider a company
can collude with the customers and ask them to keep secret
those "written notices" they received. Without these "written
notices", a third party
would not be able to get the source code?

It's not a "written notice"; it is a written offer by a company to
make available
the source code to anyone who asks.

...

I am not twisting anything, and I could have referenced several other FAQ
entries on the FSF website as well - just chose the one most relevant - one
explicitly stating the from the FSF's perspective that the party asking for the
source must also have the written notice.

You are describing a company that tries to get away with the responsibilities
of the GPL by denying that they have made a written offer for the source code,
by colluding with customers not to divulge the mention of the GPL in
the said products.
So, if I go and buy one such GPL product from the company, would the company
refuse to sell me in order not to export the written offer?


So just b/c a company does not provide the source to everyone under the sun does
not mean they are in violation of the GPL.

Note that the above situation also matches this FAQ entry:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid


Which says: “If you choose to provide source through a written offer,
then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive
it.”

It's the opposite of what you have just said.

...

Please, if you are going to try to refute this at least quote from the FSF,
Lessig, or SFLC to do so - they (and not 'gpl-violations.org' )are the authors
of the GPL.


Your views are not mainstream; if you want to gain traction, you
should make the effort
to subscribe to the gpl-violations.org mailing list and discuss these
views there.

Simos

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.