Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[David Kastrup]

rjack <robjack@insightbb.com> writes:

> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>> Rjack wrote:
>>> The GPL is a purported third party donee beneficiary contract:
>>>   b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
>>>     whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
>>>     part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
>>>     parties under the terms of this License.
>>
>> Notice that "licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties"
>> does not mean that there is any obligation to deliver anything to
>> them.
>
> True. No distribution no problem. So what? Presumably some authors do
> want their code to be distributed though.

That's their problem.  The GPL only places conditions on the _kind_ of
distribution (has to be with access to the source at no additional
cost).  As long as any recipients (including zero) receive the material
in the prescribed form, no further duty regarding accessibility or
distribution exists.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum