On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 16:45, William Hooper wrote: > Rui Miguel Seabra said: > > On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 14:10, William Hooper wrote: > >> The GPL states that the source needs to be given to people that have > >> been > >> given the binaries. It says nothing about having to give to source out > >> to > >> people that you haven't given the binaries. > > > > This is not necessarily true. Under which clause of 3. does it fit? > > Distribute a written offer for the sources. If a user re-distributes the > binaries (violating their Service Agreement), they must also distribute a > copy of the offer for the sources. When someone comes along with the > written offer to get the sources for a program, give them the _existing_ > version's source and cut off updates to the original party (they violated > their service agreement). This cuts off both the original party from > updates (you aren't giving them the binary, so you don't have to offer > them the source) and the second person (no offer for source from the first > party). > > I'm not saying it _will_ be done, I'm just saying it _could_ be done. > Just because a program is GPL doesn't mean it has to be free of cost. The problem is that that limitation of the Service Agreement might be of bad faith in light of the spirit of the license of the software they're redistributing. Of course, in the USA, all it requires is a precedent. Hugs, Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
