Hi,
seems like we are getting closer here:
It is true, that the case I constructed has nothing to do with copyright
law. My bad.
You agree that if the GPL would part of some contract (in the wider
interpretation, e.g. when buying something) or came with something I
bought from them, it would be binding.
The remaining question is: Is it also binding if they sell it to me for
zero money, that is, give it to me for free? I think so. The cost has
nothing to do with whether promises have to be kept or not.
And does it matter whether they advertised the GPL? I also think this
does not change any facts. As said before (not checked by me), the GPL
is noted in the firmware file - could be enough of an "advertisement"
for someone really looking for Free firmware.
But I guess these details are not very important, especially since the
case was hypothetical. So if nobody else wants to join the discussion I
think I'm satisfied :-)
Thanks for the interesting talk
nomeata
Am Di, den 25.11.2003 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis um 18:48:
> On Nov 25, 2003, at 09:29, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Company B produces some kind of Sweets. Because the packaging is not
> > very large, they put a note on it "for a descriptions of the
> > ingredients, mail us this way and we will send them to you". Then they
> > sell or give away (doesn't matter) some sweets. Can't I then rely that
> > the note on the packaging is correct?
>
> Yes. For one thing, they sold you it. When they did that, they created
> a contract, and part of the terms were that you could request the
> nutrition information. Even lacking that, you could demand it because,
> by law, they must provide the nutritional information.
> >
> > What if I chose their product because their firmware was GPL, and the
> > competitor's product wasn't?
>
> If you can argue the GPL firmware --- and thus the expectation of
> source --- is part of the purchase contract, you may be able to sue for
> breach of contract. I think it'd be a stretch, unless it had been
> advertised on the box or other prominent place.
>
> Sure, if they sell the product based (at least in part) on having GPL
> drivers, yet refuse to provide any source, I think you'd have a case
> against them for false advertising.
>
> But certainly not copyright infringement. And I don't think Atmel has
> advertised GPL drivers.
--
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
e-Mail: mail@joachim-breitner.de | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de
JID: joachimbreitner@amessage.de | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189
Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?>+ V?
PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+>* h! z?
Bitte senden Sie mir keine Word- oder PowerPoint-Anhänge.
Siehe http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.de.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil