Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 29 Jun 2003 23:57:39 -0700 (PDT) | From | ahorn@deorth ... | Subject | RE: Dell vs. GPL |
| |
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, David Schwartz wrote:
> There are sections of the GPL that specifically state that those who >receive copies of covered works are intended beneficiaries. Like this >section: > >"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether >gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that >you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the >source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their >rights." > > It is quote clear that this entitlement is specifically intended to benefit >the recipients and not to benefit the copyright holder.
I interpret this to mean 'distribute a copy of the GPL with all distributions of the source code, and make sure that it's followed', kind of a recursive inheritance thing...
I'm still not seeing any evidence of anyone being blocked from obtaining the source code (although I haven't followed the whole thread)
I repeat, did anyone ask dell for source code for this supposed violation? They are not bound to _distribute_ the source code with their software only to make it available in a reasonable fashion upon request.
Or am I missing something here ?
(not being argumentative here by the way, this is really interesting discussion)
Cheers,
Al
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |