On Tuesday 10 March 2009 10:23, Raj Mathur wrote: > On Tuesday 10 Mar 2009, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > > On Tuesday 10 March 2009 09:01:56 Raj Mathur wrote: > > > > > As I understand, with GPL, all you need to do when you sell > > > > > software is to make the code of the software available to > > > > > the buyer. > > > > > > > > and to anyone else who asks for it > > > > > > No, only to people you distribute the software to. If I give a > > > GPL software to Devdas, I'm obliged to provide only Devdas with > > > the source code if he asks for it. Anyone else asking for it > > > can be safely told to go jump in a well without breaking the > > > terms of the licence. > > > > the question is not about *giving* a GPL software. It is about > > distributing a modified copy of GPL'd software. Even giving the > > modified copy to one person constitutes distribution and the > > following comes into play: > > > > <quote> > > 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any > > portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy > > and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of > > Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these > > conditions: > > > > a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent > > notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any > > change. 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. > > </unquote> > > Doesn't matter. What I said earlier stands: there's no difference > between distributing, providing and giving. > > > The whole trouble with the GPL is that only two people in the > > world understand it - which is why I feel it is far easier to > > stick to the BSD license ;-) > > I understand GPLv2 well enough,
Not quite imvvho. > and GPLv3 to some extent. Under > normal circumstances you can use this dumbed-down version if you > like: > > If you give (provide, distribute, sell) a modified version of this > software, you must also give the source code to whoever receives > the software and demands the source. These conditions are > transferred along with the software. > > The more arcane clauses only come into play under very special > circumstances, The "special circumstances" are the norm now. So Dlink sells me router. I sell router to KG - pati pack - well maybe not. KG asks for code from who? He can ask from me or he can ask from Dlink no. No. He asks Dlink. Dlinks offer is inside not mine. That is why you want a printed copy with the product. KG can drag me and / or Dlink to court. But irrespective of who stands in the dock first, the guy who distributed the licence will be liable to provide source to KG. Wether i (the downstream dumbo) am distributing / liable etc are the more esoteric legal areas. There is no ambiguity at all about the guy who made the first sale being liable to make the source code offer (Linksys v/ Harald) or the guy who made the first sale being liable to provide a printed copy of licence (Dlink v/s Harald). NB when i say Harald I also mean whoever was fighting on behalf of Harald. -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
