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

Marek Peteraj marpet at naex.sk
Sat Apr 10 17:14:07 UTC 2004

On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 16:21, Paul Davis wrote:
> > >>> 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,

The GPL is not an 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.

A 'third party' with respect to an ordinary agreement doesn't have to
involved in any way.


More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list