On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 07:44:28PM +0000, Smith, McCoy wrote: > So Richard does that put you in the camp that says the installation > information requirement also exists in GPLv2? > That's one area where I could see v2 & v3 having different enforcement > options.
I understood Marc's issue to be about 'who can enforce'. I don't think the Installation Information provisions of v3 change the situation (but I admit I'm now poring over the text to see whether I've missed anything). (As for whether the Installation Information requirements also exist in some sense for GPLv2, I do understand the basis for that argument, but I've always assumed it was and remains a minority view, rejected by the author/steward of the license itself.) - Richard > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Apr 18, 2014, at 1:36 PM, "Richard Fontana" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 10:18:48PM +0200, Marc Dietrich wrote: > >> Am Mittwoch 16 April 2014, 19:08:18 schrieb Bradley M. Kuhn: > > > >>> I'm sorry that this thread has been so distracting on this issue. The > >>> goal > >>> of the GPL is to give certain freedoms to end-users, indeed. However, the > >>> primary legal mechanism it uses underneath is copyright, and as such the > >>> most traditional way and more or less the only successful way so far the > >>> license has been enforced has been through copyright holders acting on > >>> their rights. Take a look at GPLv2 Section 4 for the central provision on > >>> how this works. You also might want to read the book I wrote much of it > >>> and > >>> am the primary editor of: > >>> http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/articles/comprehensive-gpl-guide.pdf > >> > >> I'm sorry that I'm likely not motivated enough to read through all this. > >> But > >> maybe just a small question you may have an answer to (sorry, I'm again > >> too > >> lazy to google it myself). Does the GPLv3 helps with with problem? > > > > You mean does GPLv3 address the issue I believe you are raising, which > > is the presumed reservation of an enforcement remedy for a GPLv2 > > violation in the copyright holder? No, it doesn't. The interpretation > > of GPLv2 and GPLv3 should be in harmony in this respect. Thus if > > there's some theory under which one could argue that a downstream > > licensee has a legal remedy against a GPL-violating distributor, it > > should apply equally to GPLv2 and GPLv3. If there's some theory why > > this should *not* be possible, it should apply equally to GPLv2 and > > GPLv3. > > > > Also, don't misunderstand me -- this is not *inherent* to the GPL as > > some sort of abstract thing. I can envision various ways in which a > > hypothetical GNU GPLv4 could be drafted to make weak or strong > > attempts to ensure that downstream users have legal remedies to > > enforce the source code requirements of the GPL. These might come at a > > cost which might be seen as undesirable. But that's for the FSF of the > > future to decide. > > > > > > - Richard > > > >
