RE: Dell vs. GPL

[ahorn@deorth.org]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, David Schwartz wrote:

>	There are sections of the GPL that specifically state that those who
>receive copies of covered works are intended beneficiaries. Like this
>section:
>
>"For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
>gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
>you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
>source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
>rights."
>
>	It is quote clear that this entitlement is specifically intended to benefit
>the recipients and not to benefit the copyright holder.

I interpret this to mean 'distribute a copy of the GPL with all
distributions of the source code, and make sure that it's followed', kind
of a recursive inheritance thing...

I'm still not seeing any evidence of anyone being blocked from obtaining
the source code (although I haven't followed the whole thread)

I repeat, did anyone ask dell for source code for this supposed violation?
They are not bound to _distribute_ the source code with their software
only to make it available in a reasonable fashion upon request.

Or am I missing something here ?

(not being argumentative here by the way, this is really interesting
discussion)

Cheers,

Al