Hi Neil <snip> > It sounds as if we have similar in the UK (although, of course, it means > interpreting the GPL as a contract, and persuading a court to this effect) - > it's > the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 > (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/31/contents). > > Here's perhaps the key part (s1): > > > (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who is not a party to a > contract > (a "third party") may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if- > > (a)the contract expressly provides that he may, or > > (b)subject to subsection (2), the term purports to confer a benefit on him. > > (2)Subsection (1)(b) does not apply if on a proper construction of the > contract it > appears that the parties did not intend the term to be enforceable by the > third > party. > > (3)The third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name, as a > member of a class or as answering a particular description but need not be in > existence when the contract is entered into. > > > Could the class be "any third party", who was entitled to require the source > to > be provided in response to a written offer?
I see no reason why the class cannot be 'any third party'. However, the problem is that to impose an obligation to release the source, you need to interpret that requirement as an contractual obligation, as opposed to a condition imposed on the right to distribute. The other problem is that there are 3 ways of fulfilling the condition: even if you can interpret the condition as an obligation, which one should the court choose to enforce? My understanding is the FSF does not believe there is (ever) an enforceable obligation to release the source, but that if the source is not released (or the offer made), there is a failure to comply with the condition, and the remedies of copyright apply. This is one of their complaints against people who spread FUD about the GPL, claiming that inadvertent use may require them to release all of their source code. This is one reason why, under English law, I'm more comfortable with interpreting the GPL as a bare licence, and not a contract. Best Andrew
