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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,faf964ea4531e6af
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,43ae7f61992b3213
X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public
From: philh@vision25.demon.co.uk (Phil Hunt)
Subject: Re: GPL and "free" software
Date: 1999/04/26
Message-ID: <925098459snz@vision25.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 471254109
References: <3723c38b@eeyore.callnetuk.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Mail2News-Path: news.demon.net!vision25.demon.co.uk
X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 925171128 mail2news:19708 mail2news
 mail2news.demon.co.uk
Organization: here
Reply-To: philh@vision25.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1999-04-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3723c38b@eeyore.callnetuk.com>
           nickroberts@callnetuk.com "Nick Roberts" writes:
> Wading rather trepidly into this issue, and with the understanding that I am
> not any kind of legal expert (in UK or US law), I have wondered if there is
> a potential problem with the GPL and similar licences, which I'll try to
> describe.
> 
> Suppose party B obtains a work (of software), under the GPL, from party A
> (paying nothing for it).  Then suppose party B modifies this work to form a
> work which they then sell to party C (who is not aware of its GPL heritage)
> for a substantial amount of money.
> 
> Now, suppose party C subsequently discovers the fact that the work is
> derived from a GPL work; what can they do?

They can demand that B give them the source.

They cannot sue anyone, unless B told C that they owned the copyright to
all the program they sold (in which case it is fraud). It is perfectly 
legal to distribute GPL'ed software for money.

-- 
Phil Hunt....philh@vision25.demon.co.uk