News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on BMW and the GPL. Parent comment

Re:BMW and the GPL by lmm on Friday March 11, 2016 @10:20AM (#11267063)
The intent of the "any third party" language is that someone who receives a copy under 3c can invoke the offer. The offer must be valid for him, but unless he received the written offer (e.g. by buying a second-hand BMW from someone who distributed the software in accordance with 3c) he has no real business taking it up (and while BMW must honour their offer if he happens to make the correct request, they have no obligation, legal or moral, to help him make the request the correct way).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BMW and the GPL by DannyBee on Friday March 11, 2016 @10:37AM (#11267176)
No, that's not the intent. At all.

In fact, this is covered square on by the GPL faq:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatDoesWrittenO...

"What does “written offer valid for any third party” mean in GPLv2? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what? (#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid)

If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it."

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BMW and the GPL by lmm on Friday March 11, 2016 @10:58AM (#11267318)
From your own link: "The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you." So yes, that is the intent.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BMW and the GPL by DannyBee on Friday March 11, 2016 @02:14PM (#11268797)
Sigh. Look. they have bad grammar, but i'm telling you what the intent is. Please read the GPL compliance guide: https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-gu...

The example valid offer: "... This offer is valid to anyone in receipt of this information."

"Second, note that the last line makes the offer valid to anyone who requests the source. This is because v2 § 3(b) requires that offers be “to give any third party” a copy of the Corresponding Source."

This changed in GPLv3, which specifically mentions people who possess the object code instead.

It was changed explicitly, see the rationale for the third discussion draft of the gplv3.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BMW and the GPL by lmm on Friday March 11, 2016 @05:34PM (#11270037)
The legal implementation is that the offer must be valid for any third party, yes. But the intent is that the offer is for people who received it under 3c, and I have no problem with BMW only doing the bare legal minimum for anyone else.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BMW and the GPL by DannyBee on Monday March 14, 2016 @12:32PM (#11283768)
"But the intent is that the offer is for people who received it under 3c,"

Citation requested on intent.

I have provided evidence this was not the intent, citing things like the draft rationale, etc for the license prepared by the people who made the license. Please provide your counter evidence.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:BMW and the GPL by lmm on Tuesday March 15, 2016 @11:33AM (#11290371)
You've already provided the citation! Once again, direct quote from your own link, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatDoesWrittenO... : "The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you." (where "in that way" is referring to "When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer.", i.e. 3c).
[ Parent | on HN ]