A GNU GPL question (might be slightly OT)
Hello! This may be slightly OT, but I have really looked around for a better place to ask this question, and failed. I'm in a situation where I am trying to get the source code for a program from the company that distributed that program, and this has turned out to be really difficult. Currently, I'm preparing a reply to their lawyer (I have no legal training myself, so this is really difficult) where he talks to me about a three year rule within the GPL. Here's how I understand this issue: (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Jim gives Joe a program licensed under the GPL. Jim does not provide Joe with the source code, but with a written offer to provide that source code upon request. He can do this, according to section 3b in the GPL. However, that only requires Jim to comply with that offer for a period of three years, which is also stated in section 3b. Two years later, Joe re-distributes the program to Jill, and he includes the written offer from Jim. Joe is required to do so, according to section 3c. Two more years pass and Jill decides that she wants that source code. Here's where my question comes: Since FOUR years has passed since Jim originally distributed the program, he feels that he is no longer obliged to comply with his written offer. However, Jill feels that since she got the program only TWO years ago, the offer is still something that Jim is required to comply with. In her timeline, the three-year limit is not passed yet. That is my question. Who is right, Jim or Jill? I think it's a really important question, too. I shall explain why. Consider this: Jim downloads the source code for the gcc compiler. He then modifies that source and creates jimsgcc. But Jim doesn't really want to share the source with anyone. He is evil and he is also smart. So he finds section 3b in the GPL and he contacs Joe, who is also evil and ready to help Jim out when it comes to completing the scheme. Jim distributes the program (jimsgcc) to Joe, with that valid-for-three years offer that section 3b speaks about. Joe then sits on his ass for three years, so that the offer is no longer valid. Joe now starts distributing the jimsgcc (here, working on orders from Jim of course) and if anyone (any third party) requests the source code from Jim according to that written offer, he denies and says that more than three years has passed since the offer was issued and voilá, Jim has managed to short-circuit the GPL. (Yes, three years is a long time for a computer program and jimsgcc not likely to be very attractive by the time it actually is available, but the principle still holds.) Is this a loophole in the GPL? If my question above is answered with Jim, I think it is. If the answer is Jill, it most likely is not. So... What do you all say about this? /Fredrik Persson
Re: A GNU GPL question (might be slightly OT)
On 20020906T180308+0200, Fredrik Persson wrote: This may be slightly OT, but I have really looked around for a better place to ask this question, and failed. The FSF may be a better place. They have a mailing address for licensing questions but I forget what it was. That is my question. Who is right, Jim or Jill? I think it's a really important question, too. I shall explain why. I see your point. My initial answer would be that Jim is right, assuming that the offer is properly dated (as it should be). But this does not address the problem. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, LuK (BSc)* http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A GNU GPL question (might be slightly OT)
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho on Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 07:52:06PM +0300 wrote: The FSF may be a better place. They have a mailing address for licensing questions but I forget what it was. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Spencer Hal Visick Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Re: A GNU GPL question (might be slightly OT)
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 11:03, Fredrik Persson wrote: Is this a loophole in the GPL? If my question above is answered with Jim, I think it is. If the answer is Jill, it most likely is not. So... What do you all say about this? I say that the answer is Jim, but that this is not as serious a problem as you make it sound. The GPL 3c only applies to non-commercial distribution. But I have brought it up here at the FSF, and I believe that future versions of the GPL will take it into account, by saying something like, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above. The offer must still be valid) -- -Dave Turner Free Software Licensing Guru
Re: A GNU GPL question (might be slightly OT)
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Fredrik Persson wrote: I'm in a situation where I am trying to get the source code for a program from the company that distributed that program, and this has turned out to be really difficult. Currently, I'm preparing a reply to their lawyer (I have no legal training myself, so this is really difficult) where he talks to me about a three year rule within the GPL. I'm not a lawyer either, but I'll try to answer. stddisclaimer.h. 3b doesn't seem to have a loophole to me, but 3c might be susceptible in a very limited way. Jim gives Joe a program licensed under the GPL. Jim does not provide Joe with the source code, but with a written offer to provide that source code upon request. He can do this, according to section 3b in the GPL. However, that only requires Jim to comply with that offer for a period of three years, which is also stated in section 3b. So far so good. Two years later, Joe re-distributes the program to Jill, and he includes the written offer from Jim. Joe is required to do so, according to section 3c. At this point, as long as the Joe-Jill distribution was noncommercial, there has been no violation of GPL that I can see. At this point, Jill has a copy that she cannot distribute (She can't fulfill 3a or 3b, and 3c only applies to software she got under 3b. Her best bet is to immediately excercise the offer to get source, so she can distribute under 3a or 3b. Two more years pass and Jill decides that she wants that source code. Jill now has a copy of a program for which nobody has a legal obligation to provide source. So does Joe. Heck, so might Jim if he didn't save the source. This cannot be distributed under the GPL. It's possible to argue that Joe can still noncommercially distribute the sourceless binary under 3c, accompanied by the expired written offer from Jim. Nobody who recieved the binary this way could redistribute it (like always, as I read it, for programs distributed under 3c). Fortunately, it's limited to noncommercial transactions and it creates undistributable copies, so there is very little incentive to excercise this loophole. It does mean that Debian shouldn't accept software under 3b or 3c of the GPL. Which we probably wouldn't anyway for logistics reasons. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
