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: 103376,faf964ea4531e6af X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,43ae7f61992b3213 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public From: Barry Margolin Subject: Re: GPL and "free" software Date: 1999/04/26 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 471088921 Distribution: world References: <7fibd5$jc7$1@news2.tor.accglobal.net> <7fudch$hsv$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3723c38b@eeyore.callnetuk.com> X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Trace: +rvUKjd5xpGZpj4luq11lQZGxpGJ/Omz0QVw2rw8ax+ENgDEdSTFpYBcWgaQXK4gcGR3LV/Ipe07!2SmvqgaJnewDpJOsRW3kAW+BtKewvGOxyXTlhzqRIoL9iNqn68W7w+kBasw= Organization: GTE Internetworking, Cambridge, MA X-Copies-To: never NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:14:49 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Originator: barmar@bbnplanet.com (Barry Margolin) Date: 1999-04-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , wrote: >Well B has done nothing wrong in selling C the software. Neither party can >really sue B because B hasn't broken the licence (unless they refuse to >give C the source code upon request). The GPL requires you to license the derivative work under the GPL or something compatible with it. If B didn't provide such a license to C, they violated the GPL. Regarding Nick's question about what rights C has, there's been an ongoing debate about this in the "embedded systems and GPL" thread for at least a week. >B can charge as much as they like for the software, and they are under no >obligation to tell C that it can be obtained gratis elsewhere. This is true. In fact, it might *not* be available elsewhere, unless some other customer of B has chosen to make it available. > >Nick Roberts wrote: >> 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? It seems to me that if party C >> attempts to sue B, B can argue that C is not the injured party, because it >> is not C's licence who's terms were breached. On the other hand, it seems >> to me that if party A attempts to sue B (on behalf of C), B can argue that A >> (or any other party, for that matter) has not suffered any financial loss, >> and so are not entitled to any compensation (except, perhaps, for court >> costs and legal fees). -- Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.