RE: Dell vs. GPL

["David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>]

> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003, David Schwartz wrote:

> >> First since it effects ATA it is my issue for the most part.
> >> You have no stake or issue to pursue GPL violations if there are any.

> >	False. He is an intended third party beneficiary of the GPL.

> As I understood it, only the copyright holder of the code could pursue GPL
> violations. I believe the FSF will give help to anyone who wishes to
> pursue such action for 'the little guys' out there.

	There could be some unusual quirk of the law that I'm not aware of. But it
would be unbelievably unusual if you could be a named third-party
beneficiary of a contract that specifically stated that you were entitled to
something and yet you still couldn't sue to enforce that entitlement.

	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.

	DS