On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 08:03:23PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > Yes it is. You have to provide or offer the sources, but the person > > who receives them does not have to take or keep them. > > If it didn't, then I as Big Evil Proprietary Software > > Company would just sell binary-only CD's in exchange for cash plus a > > signed declaration that "I hereby forfeit my right to recieve source > > code from you". > > I don't believe that is really the same situation. > How isn't it? The above statement in writing is no different in meaning > or intent from saying "no thanks" when the person handing you a binary > of GCC also offers you the source code. It's just a lot more > formalized. > Note that I am not endorsing or condoning the tactics in my "Big Evil" > paragraph above, I'm just not sure what in the GPL is stopping people > from doing it. Saying "no thanks" works only because it is done in an informal context. From a legal standpoint, the GPL is a license between the author and the distributor, and no statement from a third party (here the recipient of the binaries), signed, notarized or otherwise, will remove the obligations of the licensee -- namely, to provide the recipient of the binaries with either the source code, or a written offer to provide the source code upon request. Failure to do one of these two things exposes the distributor to legal action from the author. But in a world where everybody plays nice, that's ok. The GPL is the means of creating a community within a world full of legal nuances, but within the community itself, not everything has to be mediated by lawyers. After all, it is also the prerogative of the copyright holder to /not/ sue for this sort of violation. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpVpa4fWcd9w.pgp
Description: PGP signature