BSD-like licenses and the OSI approval process

[Matthew Flaschen]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Now, consider:
> 
>     1. Party A makes a GPL'ed program available, on two CDs.  One has the
>     program in binary form, and one has the source.
> 
>     2. Party B obtains these CDs, and having no interest in the source code,
>     gives the source CD away, or perhaps discards it.
> 
>     3. Later, Party B no longer has a use for the program, so deletes all
>     copies they have made of the binary CD, and then puts the binary CD up
>     for sale.
> 
>     4. Party C buys the binary CD.
> 
> Question: who, if any, is obligated to provide source to Party C (if
> Party C wants it)?
> 
> As far as I can work out, the answer is no one.  Party A is off the
> hook. He distributed the source with the binary, satisfying all of his
> GPL requirements.

Right.  They don't need to provide a written offer, since they're
providing source with the binary.

> As for Party B, he is the owner of a copy of the program, legally
> obtained, and is entitled under the First Sale Doctrine to sell that
> particular copy.

I think you're right.  Party B /is/ distributing, which usually falls
under the scope of the GPL.  However, the First Sale Doctrine is an
exception to the exclusive copyright right of distribution, so Party B
doesn't have to follow the GPL.

> Note that the GPLv2 does not acknowledge Section 109 when it states
> "However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute
> the Program or its derivative works."

GPLv3 makes it clear it doesn't remove existing consumer rights (as if
any copyright license could do that) by adding "This License
acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by
copyright law."

Matt Flaschen