On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:54 PM, BRM <[email protected]> wrote: > DISCLAIMER: IANAL. Consult one for real legal advice if you need it. > ... > Party F may ask Group C for the code, showing the written notice he received > from Customer E which matches what Group C provided to Customer E. >
I think your misconception arises from the fact that you consider a company can collude with the customers and ask them to keep secret those "written notices" they received. Without these "written notices", a third party would not be able to get the source code? It's not a "written notice"; it is a written offer by a company to make available the source code to anyone who asks. ... > > I am not twisting anything, and I could have referenced several other FAQ > entries on the FSF website as well - just chose the one most relevant - one > explicitly stating the from the FSF's perspective that the party asking for > the > source must also have the written notice. You are describing a company that tries to get away with the responsibilities of the GPL by denying that they have made a written offer for the source code, by colluding with customers not to divulge the mention of the GPL in the said products. So, if I go and buy one such GPL product from the company, would the company refuse to sell me in order not to export the written offer? > > So just b/c a company does not provide the source to everyone under the sun > does > not mean they are in violation of the GPL. > > Note that the above situation also matches this FAQ entry: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid > Which says: “If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.” It's the opposite of what you have just said. ... > > Please, if you are going to try to refute this at least quote from the FSF, > Lessig, or SFLC to do so - they (and not 'gpl-violations.org' )are the authors > of the GPL. > Your views are not mainstream; if you want to gain traction, you should make the effort to subscribe to the gpl-violations.org mailing list and discuss these views there. Simos -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
