Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> My dearest Alexander, what would constitute the copyright holder and
>> licensor "breaching the contract"? There are no obligations to her
>> spelled out at all in "the contract". So how would she breach them?
>
> By failing to provide source code, idiot.
Could you please cite the passage of the GPL where the licensor, as
opposed to the licensee, is required to provide source code?
The only term where the copyright holder is even mentioned is term 0:
0. This License applies to any program or other work which
contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be
distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The
"Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work
based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative
work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the
Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications
and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter,
translation is included without limitation in the term
"modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
And of course, if the copyright holder does not provide a file "which
contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be
distributed under the terms of this General Public License" then the
GPL does not apply to it.
So, my dear Alexander, just where do you think does the GPL say that
the copyright holder is required to do anything such that she could be
said to be breaching the GPL "contract"?
Just quote the passage you think would apply here.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
