Restriction on distribution by Novell?

[Smith, McCoy]

Not sure if this has been pointed out already (haven't read the many
e-mail flooding my box on this topic) but the FSF has an FAQ on what is
required to comply with the written offer requirement:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferV
alid

"Knowledge of the written offer" is not enough to trigger the
obligation.  You have to have the written offer itself.  And that's
according to the FSF.


-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Flaschen [mailto:superm40 at comcast.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 3:08 PM
To: license-discuss at opensource.org
Subject: Re: Restriction on distribution by Novell?

Wilson, Andrew wrote:
> The written offer must be provided to distributees of Novell.
> Distributees may choose to exercise the offer on behalf of a 3rd
party,
> but again, Novell is only required to provide said offer to their
> distributees.

Okay, I can see your point now (Don't worry.  I wouldn't stay on this 
list if I minded subtle distinctions).  First, I think anyone with a 
written offer provided by Novell can definitely get complete source 
(even if the written offer was transferred to them).  The next question 
is whether a physical copy of the written source is good enough.  I 
think yes because the offer is to "give any third party."  Then, is 
knowledge that a written offer exists good enough?  I have assumed yes 
to this too.  That is the one you seem to be disputing, primarily.  I 
would still say yes here, because I see the offer as more of a promise 
or procedure than a coupon.  This is actually the way most 
redistributors seem to interpret it too.  I haven't heard of a case 
where a distributor said, "Mail in this written offer and we'll mail 
back source."  It's always "Call this number and pay for a CD" or "Get 
it off this FTP site." I.E. it's saying that the distributor will make 
source available to people who ask right. :)

***********************  GPL 3 ONLY *********************************
As for GPL3, its 3b is mostly the same: "Convey the object code in a 
physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied

by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long

as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to 
give any third party a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the 
software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable 
physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price 
no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this 
conveying of source."

By your argument, only those with the actual written offer would have 
access to source this way; I don't really see a big difference (except 
that the source must also be on a physical medium.

However, if a company decides they want to provide the source on a 
network server, they must "[b1) Convey the object code in a physical 
product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a 
written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as 
you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to 
provide access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at

no charge.]" or  "d) Convey the object code by offering access from a 
designated place, and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding 
Source in the same way through the same place at no extra charge. You 
need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with 
the object code."

It doesn't even say who they must provide access to, so I think it is 
implicitly completely public.

***********************  END GPL 3 *********************************


Matthew Flaschen