[License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 4

[David Woolley]

On 07/08/18 21:53, Gustavo G. Mármol wrote:
> That´s to say, regardless of the quantities of commercial resellers that 
> it could be in a "distribution binary product´s chain" the original 
> distributor/manufacturer would be the party that in practical terms 
> would provide "the source code offer" to the "final licensee or end 
> users" (despite the fact that the original distributor/manufacturer has 
> no contractual relationship with the commercial redistributor´s end 
> user/customer) and not the commercial redistributors (authorized by the 
> original distributor/manufacturer to distributes their products).

The whole public licence concept is based on the idea that rights can be 
given without a direct contract.

The final distribution step can be non-commercial, leading to an 
unlimited liability on the last commercial distributor.

As I remarked, up-thread, it is fairly clear that the intent is to 
strongly encourage commercial distributors to provide the source code at 
the same time as the binary. By doing that, they no longer have any 
obligation.

I think the practice of making the offer at the top of distribution also 
applies to embedded linux systems in the UK, e.g. set top boxes. 
Although it may technically violate the licence, I think that licensors 
tend to take the view that it does still achieve the spirit of the 
licence, namely that end users are assured of being able to obtain a copy.