Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:26:06 -0500 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <underway@comcast.net> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License Message-ID: <20040125202606.GA2735@online.fr> In-Reply-To: <yjhdyju9mk.dyj@mail.comcast.net> References: <20040125170439.GA1533@online.fr> <yjhdyju9mk.dyj@mail.comcast.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> While it's probably low risk to assume that some private derivatives > are not subject to the "all third parties" clause, I think I see your confusion: that clause says if you distribute it to anyone else, you must license it to all third parties. That means you cannot stop it from being redistributed -- whoever receives it has your permission to pass it on further under the GPL. It does not mean that you must hand out a copy to whoever asks for it, or that anyone in the world can demand source code from you. Read the FAQ, in particular http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic You may say "that's the FSF's interpretation", but it's been gone over by their lawyers, and it's totally obvious you're not a lawyer, so either believe the FSF or find a lawyer who supports your interpretations. Rahul
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040125202606.GA2735>