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

----- Original Message ----

From: Simos Xenitellis <>
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:54 PM, BRM <> 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 
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 never said they were colluding. No collusion was required, and no one need 
deny they were providing GPL'd products.
If you want, you could change out every group/party/company in that scenario to 
be individual people - it doesn't change a thing wrt to the GPL.
It also doesn't entitle someone who has not received a copy of the product to 
receiving a copy of the source code.

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 
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 
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?

If you have a the GPL'd product, then you have the right to get the source.
If not, you don't.

If you received it second hand - e.g. indirectly - then you still have the right 
to the source, but you may have to show the product or written offer.

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

Note that the above situation also matches  this FAQ entry:

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's the  opposite of what you have just said.

No, it implies (or rather, another FAQ entry - I forget which off hand - states) 
that you need the written offer as well.
So as long as you provide a copy of the written offer, they are required to 
provide it to you.
Said written offer being acquired either directly or indirectly.
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 '' )are the  
of the GPL.

Your views are not mainstream; if you  want to gain traction, you should make 
the effort
to subscribe to the mailing list and discuss these views  

Doesn't have to be mainstream. As I said - there is a very common misconception 
on the issue.

It's not a mainstream view that GPL'd software be charged for too (people - 
especially GPL people - like getting stuff for free as in beer) - yet, FSF 
states that's perfectly acceptable to do as its not about Free as in beer 
(that's a good thing) but free as in speech.


Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.