From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,43ae7f61992b3213 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,faf964ea4531e6af X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: GPL and "free" software Date: 1999/04/26 Message-ID: <7g2l0f$58g$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 471176057 References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net> <7fjucn$k4p$1@trog.dera.gov.uk> <7fkl3v$1e2$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7fl5ac$9sh$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net> <7fl9q5$ab7@drn.newsguy.com> <7foo6s$qbm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <37209ca6.1133249@news.pacbell.net> <7fudch$hsv$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3723c38b@eeyore.callnetuk.com> <7g1sdh$nvo$2@netnews.upenn.edu> <7g268b$n1e$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7g2epv$k11$1@netnews.upenn.edu> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x2.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Apr 26 21:14:59 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-04-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <7g2epv$k11$1@netnews.upenn.edu>, hughett@chaplin.med.upenn.edu (Paul Hughett) wrote: > I am assuming that B misrepresented the software as their > own and failed to inform C that C is free to use and/or > redistribute the software under the GPL; then I think C > has a pretty good case for fraud. But in fact C is NOT free to further distribute this software, since C does not hold a license. C has been granted a license neither by B nor by A, thus C cannot copy the software at all. The question of whether C has any standing depends on how the situation was presented to C. For example, if there was a message attached saying "this is an unauthorized copy, but we won't tell if you don't", then C would have little recourse. C as the recipient of an undisclosed illegal copy of software would definitely have recourse against B if the copy had been represented as legal. > > If B sells the software in a convenient form for C and/or with support > and hand-holding to get started, WITH correct information about its > provenance and licensing, then you are quite correct; this is both > legal and a good thing. But that wasn't the situation I understood > from the question. > > Paul Hughett > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own