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: <spblunt@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Re: GPL and "free" software
Date: 1999/04/26
Message-ID: <gi71g7.gj.ln@joey>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 470976143
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$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <37209ca6.1133249@news.pacbell.net>
 <m34sm64cz2.fsf@deneb.cygnus.stuttgart.netsurf.de>
 <7fudch$hsv$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <3723c38b@eeyore.callnetuk.com>
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@remarQ.com
X-Trace: 925119867 WGEK3PBHSE3CD8B86 usenet46.supernews.com
Organization: TIN unltd.
User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990216 ("Styrofoam") (UNIX) (Linux/2.0.36 (i586))
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 1999-04-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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).

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.

Nick Roberts <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> 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).