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