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

[Marek Peteraj]

On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 12:58, will at malefactor.org wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 04:08:09PM +0100, 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.
> > Anyway, I think you're parsing the name wrong: IMHO Its a
> > General(Public(Licence)) not a (General Public)Licence.
> > 
> > >>> 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.
> > 
> > You absolutely DO NOT have to make executeables available to the general
> > public when you modify a GPL program. 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > Simon Jenkins
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> Nobody had a problem with Native Instruments just packaging the sources
> on a CD with Final Scratch: http://eca.cx/lad/2003/11/0010.html :)

In some cases this is really sufficient.

> 
> IANAL, but I'm 99% sure that when you give someone a GPLd executable, 
> you're only obligated to provide that one person with the sources, not the 
> "general public" (read: everyone on earth).

Depends on who is someone. :)

>  Of course, I wouldn't put it
> past Stallman, but it seems way too screwy...

Actually the more i look at the GPL the more is think that it's a very
cool lincense that indeed does its job in protecting opensource
developers.

Marek