[linux-audio-dev] [OT] Linux, audio and the breach of GPL

Paul Davis paul at linuxaudiosystems.com
Sat Apr 10 14:21:23 UTC 2004

> >>> The GPL also uses the term ,any third party'.
>And the FAQ clarifies exactly what is meant by "third party": Under some
>circumstances (ie GPL section 3c) Distributees may pass along your written
>offer of source code when they pass along your binary. Your offer must
>extend to these third parties (they are "parties" to the licence agreement,
>btw) as well as to your original distributees.

i believe this is correct. marek is reading the GPL as a regular
english text, when in fact it is legalese. in normal english, "a third
party" is just "another person". in a license agreement, it has a much
more specific connotation. a "party" here is not a person, its someone
who is in some way involved in the license agreement being
discussed. a "third party" is thus a person involved in the license
agreement, but they are not either the licensee nor the licensor.

none of this would be notable to a lawyer - its only an item for
disagreement/confusion because its interpreted by non-lawyers way too
often :)

>But if (and only if) you distribute an executeable, then you are obligated
>to make source available to those who you distribute it to, and to "third
>parties" as described above.

and this is precisely why the 3 options for distribution (in the
non-commercial distributon case only) include an "upstream feed"
(i.e. you can get it where i got it). if i license my program to you,
and you (non-commercially) distribute it to someone else, you can
point them to me.


More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list