RJack <u...@example.net> writes:

> Supporters of the GPL license as well as the SFLC claim that section
> 2(b) is a "condition" to the license:
> "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
> whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
> part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
> parties under the terms of this License."

That's GPLv2.  I recommend that you discuss the current GPL version.

> GPL supporters need only identify the purported "event" which must
> occur before "performance" becomes due under the GPL contract. This
> would demonstrate that section 2(b) is actually a license condition.

"cause [...] to be licensed" is rather fuzzy.  A license without an
actual copy is not useful, so this means that you need only bother about
copies you actually distribute.  Now what if downstream decides to
redistribute under different conditions, in violation of the license?
Are _you_ then responsible to make downstream _heed_ the license, by
suing for compliance?

I guess this fuzziness is what made that particular clause not survive
into GPLv3.

David Kastrup
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to