From: "Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
He was redistributing *prerelease* code that SveaSoft *had not yet released*. GPL or no, companies do not have to provide source code for software that they do not release.
In addition, if I remember correctly, the full amount of threats consisted of terminating the offender's subscription to SveaSoft. Severing a business association is an action which most businesses are allowed to do for just about any reason
Not quite. The GPL says you must give them code if you DISTRIBUTE the binary, not RELEASE. Otherwse MS could say Linux was Windows YZ alpha-1 and sell it without giving code. They were distributing the binary, thus they had to distribute the code.
They then forced, as part of their service, an agreement not to further distribute the GPLed beta code until release (limiting your GPL rights). They claimed you would have the right to do it with their official release. I can't confirm or deny that you did. This is technicly legit- you're giving up a right the GPL allows as a condition for additional goods/services. Its definitely shady and against the spirit of the GPL. Its a loophole that can (and will) be exploited by buisnesses to use GPL code without really allowing distribution of their changes ("As part of our service agreement, you get 5 years of updates in exchangte for not redistributing the source. If you violate this agreement you owe us 10 million dollars").
I can understand the desire not to have beta code floating around- it probably has ugly bugs they don't want associated with them. This is not a good way to do it, and should not be encouraged.
They've done the opposite- confirmed its legal. I would expect the next version of the GPL to try and counter it. Possibly a line that says in legalese: "No outside agreements between parties may further restrict a users right to distribute the code under this license, and no punishment or penalties may be applied to him for doing so".
The situation is far from as clear as you make it seem. However, if you can provide a letter from the GNU guys saying to the contrary, I would be willing to change my mind.
I hope Moglen hurries up on the next version- I see some definite weaknesses in areas like this, hosted services, and patents that the GPL needs to address.
Gabe
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
