Re: Bug#221709: ITP: at76c503a-source -- at76c503a driver source

[Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>]

Scripsit Joachim Breitner

> You are talking about the usual case where the copyright owner
> releases a work under the GPL but still has all rights to do with it
> what it wants, like selling the binarys.

Yes. That is what happens here.

> But when they give me the file, and telling me: here, this is for
> you, and your rights are according to this text (the GPL), then they
> bound themselves to the conditions they proposed (the GPL). And the
> GPL grants me the right to get the source code.

No it doesn't. The only rights the GPL gives you are the rights to
modify and/or distribute if you always distribute source code along
with binaries you distribute. It does not give you any right to make
anyone give you the source code.

If I give you a Linux kernel image but do not give you the source, you
*cannot* sue me to get the source; I never promised you anything and
you have no contract with me. However, in doing the copying, I
promised Linus that I would give you the source; as recipient of this
promise *he* can sue me for copying without jumping through the hoops
he has specified. He can, however, also retroactively decide that in
this particular case he doesn't care to sue me.

("Cannot sue", of course, means "cannot sue and have any chance of
winning").

> Atmel agreed to the condition of the GPL when they distributed it,
> and I agreed on them when I downloaded it. A contract. That grants
> me the right to get the source code.

You're seriously confused. Atmel does *not* need to accept the
liabilities that the GPL places on "you". They already have the
permission to distribute, with or without source as they please.

> > Won't work. In most jurisdictions, the only one who can file suits
> > alleging non-compliance with copyright licenses is the copyright
> > holder himself, or his legal delegate.

> Well, I would sue them for breaking our "contract".

No, because they aren't. Their obligations as a GPL licensor include
nothing more than suffering your copying, modification, distribution
as long as you fulfill the terms set forth in the GPL. The only way
they could conceivably "break" those obligations is if they sue *you*
for copyright violation even if you *have* followed the terms of the
GPL (which you cannot do as long as you are not in possession of the
source).

-- 
Henning Makholm                             "... and that Greek, Thucydides"