Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:46:06 -0800 From: underway@comcast.net (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New Open Source License: Single Supplier Open Source License Message-ID: <97d697s1nl.697@mail.comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <20040125202606.GA2735@online.fr> (Rahul Siddharthan's message of "Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:26:06 -0500") References: <20040125170439.GA1533@online.fr> <yjhdyju9mk.dyj@mail.comcast.net> <20040125202606.GA2735@online.fr>
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, Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> writes: > I think I see your confusion: No, you don't. > that clause says if you distribute it to > anyone else, you must license it to all third parties. No, it doesn't say that. It say if distribute it or publish it. We know what "publish" means, but we don't know what distribute means (to non-FSF licensors); even whether it is limited to "anyone else". > 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. That's not my confusion and I doubt if it was the OP's; I think he was just being very loose in his language and I thought it was wrong of you to take it so literally and not read between his lines. I was going to say that before but wanted to keep it short and less accusatory. (I guess I shouldn't have worried about that.) It was fairly obvious to me that he was worried about licenses and didn't care a bit about any requirements to provide source to anyone, despite his literal words. > 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. But in most cases, the FSF's lawyer's are irrelevant. It's the licensor who may threaten to sick his lawyer on you. If his lawyer's get into the picture, it's too late for most people, and if it's not his lawyers are going to have their own theories of what the GPL meant to his client. BTW, I've read enough of the FSF's lawyer's crackpot writing to have little respect for his opinion about anything. The guy thinks that GPL'd software is not proprietary, for cryin' out loud.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?97d697s1nl.697>