Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)
----- Original Message ----
From: Simos Xenitellis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:54 PM, BRM <email@example.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
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
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 'gpl-violations.org' )are the
of the GPL.
Your views are not mainstream; if you want to gain traction, you should make
to subscribe to the gpl-violations.org 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 firstname.lastname@example.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
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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