Re: OFF TOPIC about GPL enforcement (Was: Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice)

----- Original Message ----

> From: Simos Xenitellis <simos.lists@googlemail.com>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:54 PM, BRM <bm_witness@yahoo.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 
received
> > 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
> make available
> 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 
> the
> > 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 
code,
> 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 
> does
> > not mean they are in  violation of the GPL.
> >
> > Note that the above situation also matches  this FAQ entry:
> >
> >  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
>
> 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.”
> 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  
> authors
> > of the GPL.
>
> Your views are not mainstream; if you  want to gain traction, you should make 
> the effort
> to subscribe to the  gpl-violations.org mailing list and discuss these views  
> there.

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.

Ben


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.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