From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268511AbUJJVzo (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:55:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268527AbUJJVzo (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:55:44 -0400 Received: from mail1.webmaster.com ([216.152.64.168]:17421 "EHLO mail1.webmaster.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268511AbUJJVzl (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:55:41 -0400 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Sam Hocevar" Cc: Subject: RE: possible GPL violation by Free Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:55:36 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Authenticated-Sender: joelkatz@webmaster.com X-Spam-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:32:20 -0700 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 206.171.168.138 X-Return-Path: davids@webmaster.com X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Reply-To: davids@webmaster.com X-MDAV-Processed: mail1.webmaster.com, Sun, 10 Oct 2004 14:32:22 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Sun, 10 Oct 2004, Sam Hocevar wrote: > > > This leaves Free with 2 options: > > I know the GPL and I know they don't appear to be doing any of these > > two things. However it might be hidden in some obscure agreement between > > Free and the user, renounced upon in such an agreement (which would > > violate the GPL, like QuakeLives did) or indeed not be there at all. And > > the only people who can verify this are the Freebox users. > Even if the Freebox users were to renounce their own > rights under the GPL, I do not see how they could > renounce OUR rights for us ... The GPL doesn't give any rights to anyone but the people the software is distributed to. Though the agreement must be enforceable by any third party, that third party must actually be a recipient of the agreement, either directly or indirectly. So in other words, if you make a custom binary of the Linux kernel and distribute it to me, then you have to give me an agreement that any third party can enforce to get the source code. But I don't have to give that agreement to any third parties if I don't want to. The rationale behind this requirement in the GPL is that without it, redistribution would be difficult. Since the GPL allows the recipients of the code to further distribute it, they must be also able to distribute the right to the source code. The GPL does not permit you to impose any other restrictions. So you can't use this as a loophole to escape the requirement of distributing the source code. A simple way to understand it is this -- wherever the executable can go, so too must the source go. Wherever the executable can go, so too must the right to redistribute the executable (and therefore, so to must go the ability to get the source). If you lawfully obtained the executable to anything derived from GPL'd code, you should be able to obtain the source code. If not, you might or might not be able to. If you have the executable, and didn't steal it or something, you should also have either the source code or the right to easily obtain the source code. DS