[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: What is source ?

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: What is source ?
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:32:20 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) (Byron A Jeff) writes:

> In article <85psfe6jfb.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup  <> 
> wrote:
>>"Vincent Rivière" <> writes:
>>> The GPL states that if I distribute my projet under GPL, I must
>>> distribute the sources, too.
>>The GPL states no such thing.  If you distribute GPLed code from
>>somebody else, you have to heed the conditions of the GPL for the
>>complete product.  But if you are the sole copyright holder, the GPL's
>>obligations are for redistributors, not yourself.
> Now that's an interesting point. As the sole copyright owner you
> certainly have the right to have multiple distributions of your
> project under different licenses. However, if you distribute to
> someone under the GPL, are you still not bound to GPL terms such as
> the 3 year offer for source for example?

Certainly not, as there is nobody who would have the right to sue you
for compliance.  If you don't deliver source, your recipients will be
unable to redistribute legally.  That basically means that the GPL, as
used by yourself, would mostly be a sham or marketing gag.

Competitors might try to sue for misleading advertising, but that's
about it.  There are no warranties, implied or otherwise, coming with
GPLed software.  The only person who has standing to sue for
non-compliance is the copyright holder himself.  As a recipient of
misleadingly GPL-labelled, or incomplete software, you can't sue your
source for compliance.  You can only report this to the copyright
holder, and he might consider action.

Naturally, if he has been giving you the software himself, his action
might consist in laughing at you.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]