Re: "GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivative distros"

[Tim Smith]

In article <mailman.3498.1151573687.9609.gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org>, Alfred M. 
Szmidt wrote:
>        1. Party A makes a GPL'ed program available, on two CDs.  One
>        has the program in binary form, and one has the source.
> 
>        2. Party B obtains these CDs, and having no interest in the
>        source code, gives the source CD away, or perhaps discards it.
> 
>        3. Later, Party B no longer has a use for the program, so
>        deletes all copies they have made of the binary CD, and then
>        puts the binary CD up for sale.
> 
>        4. Party C buys the binary CD.
> 
>    Question: who, if any, is obligated to provide source to Party C
>    (if Party C wants it)?
> 
> Party B.
> 
>    If B were selling a *modified* copy, or if B were making new copies
>    and selling them, it would be different, but that's not the case
>    here.
> 
> Party B is distributing a verbatim copy, that it is or isn't a a new
> copy isn't relevant.

You've overlooked the first sale doctrine.

-- 
--Tim Smith