distributing GPL libreries

[dtemeles at nvalaw.com]

Sorry Larry!  I couldn't distinguish the author's comments from yours  
- I should have gone back to your original email...

Quoting Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com>:

> Actually, Larry Rosen didn't write that; Scott Shattuck did. I'll encourage
> him to speak for himself.
>
> /Larry
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dtemeles at nvalaw.com [mailto:dtemeles at nvalaw.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:04 AM
>> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
>> Subject: Re: distributing GPL libreries
>>
>> This is not legal advice -
>>
>> Larry Rosen wrote:
>
> [LR:] Oh no, he didn't.
>>
>> "As third parties are not a) other branches of the same government
>> institution, b) other divisions and/or subsidiaries of the same
>> corporation, c) those who  are working for hire or otherwise
>> consulting for you etc, there are a host of scenarios where you can
>> benefit from GPL code without reciprocating."
>>
>> Larry, where does the GPL define "third parties"?  I confess that I
>> have not searched far and wide, but I do not see anything that would
>> necessarily exclude the 3 categories you mention from the definition
>> of third parties.  It would appear that this is a state law contract
>> interpretation issue that could vary from state to state.
>>
>> Also, the definition of "convey" referneces "other parties" rather
>> than "third parties".  I suggest that the issue is not as clear as
>> might first appear from your response.
>>
>> Very truly yours,
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> Quoting Scott Shattuck <scott.shattuck at gmail.com>:
>>
>> >
>> > On Jul 15, 2008, at 12:53 AM, David Woolley wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> [LR:] Why should anyone want to discourage linking with non-GPL code?
>> What
>> >>> does FSF's preference have to do with anything?
>> >>
>> >> For a start the FSF's preference is relevant because they are an
>> >> example of someone who wants to discourage the use of their code in
>> >>  programs which are not "free" by their definitions.  Basically
>> >> it's  about not benefitting from the library unless you allow
>> >> people to  benefit from your program in the same way.
>> >>
>> >
>> > If only that were true. The GPL explicitly allows a consumer of the
>> > library to benefit from the library without allowing others to benefit
>> > from their program in the same way -- except when they happen to ship
>> > the resulting work to one or more third parties. As third parties are
>> > not a) other branches of the same government institution, b) other
>> > divisions and/or subsidiaries of the same corporation, c) those who are
>> > working for hire or otherwise consulting for you etc, there are a host
>> > of scenarios where you can benefit from GPL code without reciprocating.
>> >
>> > I'd go so far as to say that the GPL isn't about freedom for the
>> > developer, it's about freedom for the consumer of the code (who just so
>> > happens to often be another developer). But the focus is on ensuring
>> > freedom to those who consume the code more than on what's best for the
>> > original developer (at least in so far as making sure the original
>> > developer's altruism is rewarded by seeing any/all updates or fixes to
>> > their code finding their way to the world at large).
>> >
>> > ss
>>
>
>
>