Hyman Rosen wrote:
Rjack wrote:
"That argument simply doesn't hold water. Covenants to offer
source code in this and such a way are not "scope of license",
they're return consideration.
Of they are not - the offer of source is not to the rights
holder, it is a condition of the permission to distribute.
Do you think that quoting someone else who is wrong will help you
make your (incorrect) case?
The GPL is a true offer of bilateral contract.
No, it's a one-way license from the rights holder to the person
who wishes to copy and distribute the covered work.
Uhmmmmm. No 17 USC 103(b)?
There weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeent the goalposts.
The distributor owes nothing back to the rights holder
The ORIGINAL and MODIFYING authors BOTH waive their exclusive
copyrights in the work "as a whole" in order to distribute. It's a
bilateral contract.
provided that distributes the work properly as required by the
GPL. This distribution is to whomever he wishes; if he provides a
copy of the sources upon distribution, he is free from any
further obligation. The rights holder could not demand a copy of
the source from him.
I'm afraid you're in deep deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenial
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
