Re: [upcoming] The European Court of Justice on 'Software' First Sale

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> writes:
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov wrote:

[...]

 >> Should a copy be made that doesn't comply with /all/ the GNU GPL
 >> conditions (such as: a binary made from a modified source without
 >> that source being made available) -- it's an infringing copy,

[...]

 > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

 > "Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted
 > to the public?

 > The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any
 > part of it."

        I see no contradition.  GNU GPL imposes restrictions mainly on
        distribution, and unless one distributes a GPL'ed work, GPL
        imposes no further restrictions (over those already imposed by
        the applicable laws.)

 > The GPL purports to restrict the statutory right (17 USC 109)

        It isn't quite the jurisdiction I'm currently under, BTW.

 > to distribute:

 > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary

 > "I downloaded just the binary from the net.  If I distribute copies,
 > do I have to get the source and distribute that too?

 > Yes.  The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must
 > distribute the complete corresponding source code too."

        Indeed, it may be necessary to clarify this paragraph a bit.

        AIUI, the intent of GNU GPL is that the source code has to be
        available to the recipient of the binaries.  If you're going to
        provide the binary to your neighbor, you can give him or her the
        URI to download the source.  Or you may even withheld that,
        should your neighbor be computer-savvy enough to obtain such an
        URI via Web search.

        ... Or you can't do either, if your neighbor has no Internet
        connectivity whatsoever, or if his or her bandwidth is too
        limited to obtain the source in a reasonable amount of time.

-- 
FSF associate member #7257