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

[Marek Peteraj]

On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 17:08, Simon Jenkins wrote:
> Marek Peteraj wrote:
> 
>  >>There's no obligation to make the object/executeable generally available.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >There is as the the name of the GPL implies. See my previous (longer)
>  >post.
>  >
>  >From your previous post:
> 
>  >>> The keyword 'General Public' applies to each Section of the GPL , and
>  >>> you have to interpret every statement made by the GPL with respect to
>  >>> 'general public'.
> 
> I can find nothing in the GPL or the FAQ to substantiate this claim.

I'm talking about interpretation, read on...

> 
>  >>> 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.

Yes, pretty much the nature of GPL, any third party. It's what i
described in my previous response to your post.

> 
> You absolutely DO NOT have to make executeables available to the general
> public when you modify a GPL program.

Not true.

The GPL explicitly states in Section 1: 'You may copy and distribute
verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it'. Section
3 states 'under the terms of Sections 1 and 2', that is, the above
statement applies to object/executable aswell.
Furthermore, Section 1 doesn't tell you _how_, but as the name of the
license implies, it means that if you choose to distribute, 'general
public' applies.

The 'general public' rule applies to the extent the form of distribution
allows it to be applied.
So, if you sell CDs, anyone who gets it is 'any third party'.
If you put it on a site, anyone who visits the site, is 'any third
party'.
If you just hand out a copy to your friend, then your friend is 'any
third party', so to speak.

>  You don't even have to make them
> available to anybody at all if you dont want to. Nor, in fact, do you
> even have to inform anybody that these modified versions even EXIST.

This is an entirely different case. It applies if you choose _not_ to
_distribute_.

> 
> 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.

Which is basically any third party :)

Marek