Open source Free software 2634

Man oh man, how can you be such a retard, dak?

David Kastrup

Consolidated know-how on escaping the GPL under 17 USC 109 can be found in "Distributing GPL software" thread on debian-legal.

and etc. (read the entire thread).

I'll quote the last one

------- I think his point is this: Person A can legally make and distribute a lot of copies to B without putting B under any obligation, as long as B doesn't make more copies himself. B, who now has a lot of copies, can dispose of them as he wishes by first sale, without having to obey the GPL.

The argument "what if it was Windows XP instead of GPL software" doesn't seem to work here. The first step would become "Person A can legally make and distribute a lot of copies of Windows XP to B..." This statement would be true for GPL software and false for Windows XP, so the argument wouldn't extend to Windows XP. Only licenses that contain the specific quirks of the GPL would have this loophole. -------

and perhaps also this part from Tim Smith' missive:

------- It seems to me that this makes it fairly easy for GPL'ed binaries in embedded systems to become separated from their source code:

1. Manufacturer builds embedded device, using GPL'ed code, and includes a source CD with the device.

2. OEM or system integrator or retailer buys device. Receives device and the source CD.

3. OEM or system integrator or retailer sells device. Does not include source code.

Is there a GPL violation? The manufacturer has fully complied with GPL. The shipped a binary accompanied with the source code. They have no further obligation with respect to that copy.

The binary copy in the device that the OEM, etc., owns was made legally. Section 109 authorizes them to distribute that copy. They don't need permission from the copyright holder, and so don't need to follow GPL.

Result: binary copy of GPL'ed software, distributed without source, and with no one obligated to provide source to the user's who recieve that binary. ------

regards, alexander.