> All right, I grant an irrevocable privilege, a right, to the software > users, as in, developers who make use of my code, *not* the end users > who might be getting it through a company selling a product.
You appear not to have read the GPL. Anyone passing on a product derivative from a GPL-licensed object must pass on those same rights to the recipient. The rights are deemed to be granted from the original copyright owner (see the licence - it's all there). So the end-user does indeed receive grants of rights from you, even if you didn't give them any code directly. This is explicitly laid out in the GPL. Your understanding of the rights grant is simply incorrect. >> This is completely untrue. the end-user *must* receive a copy of the GPL >> (that's a condition of compliance) and is free to accept or reject that >> licence as he sees fit. > > I'm not talking about the GPL, I'm talking in general. So your argument boils down to "the GPL grants rights that other licences do not"? Well colour me surprised... > This is a problem between the licensor and the licensee, if I don't > have a problem, and they don't have a problem, then there is no > problem. Ultimately I can change the license anyway. So you're saying you have a right not to enforce your rights? Where exactly is there anything of substance here. Of course you can let others ride slip-shod over your rights, if that's your choice. But earlier, you were claiming that the GPL did not afford protections to developers and/or end users. In that, you were completely wrong. If you actually meant to say "I don't need to enforce my own copyrights if I want to", then of course you're right. But these two positions have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. > Copyright legislation is meant to protect the author, if the author > doesn't have a problem with the way his/her software is being used, > then there's no problem. That's not necessarily the case. Contract legislation may also be involved, depending on your jurisdiction. But claiming that you have the right not to enforce your rights - which is true - is a very, very long way from "A right is not something a person (e.g. a developer) can make it go away on a whim, and that is the case for what the GPL gives to users", which was your earlier position. > The final end user becomes involved *only* if the company allows it, No, this is absolutely not true in the case of the GPL. The end-user has rights granted him regardless of what any intervening distributor might try to do. > not if the company is infringing, which is not a problem if the > original author doesn't have a problem. Really - you ought to read the GPL. It says different things to what you claim it says. Vic. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
