On 04/12/2014 04:52 PM, Neil Brown wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2014, at 09:08, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Why should only the originator of a contribution resp. "a piece of
>> software" be entitled to enforce disclosure of sources?
>
>
> It likely depends on the laws of your country, but establishing a basis for a
> claim might be challenging if not under copyright law.
>
> Some kind of action for breach of contract, if you could prove (would that be
> in the interests of the community anyway?) that the GPL was a contract and
> not a licence.
Thanks, Neil.
I understand, that interpreting the GPL as a contract or as a part of a
contract might lead to unwalked paths :)
On the other hand, from an end user's perspective, he/she is crippled
the right to get the sources, which - eventually - is one of the core
things of the GPL, or am I wrong?
Sources = ability to modify = ability to distribute and so on.
Having some legal (albeit quite rusty) background from Austria, we have
those contracts for the benefit of a third party ("Vertrag mit
Schutzwirkung zugunsten Dritter"), allowing the third party to intervene
according to the terms of the contract as well. In the case of the OP,
that would come very handy ...
So, as per the OP question, TomTom contracted GPL licensed software to
Renault, opening a path for "third parties" (like the OP) to intervene
on their own behalf as well.
Udo
