[License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 6

Wed Aug 8 13:06:13 UTC 2018

As mentioned earlier, literally the text of the license does not regulates the option of making the source code offer at the top of the distribution ("If you are a commercial distributor of GPL’d program, even if you merely redistribute software produced by someone else, you are bound by the terms of the GPL. In such cases it is never sufficient to merely pass along the same written offer for source that you received from your upstream licensor or supplier and expect your users to get the source code from your supplier.” SFLC, Oct, 2014). I guess that it would constitute a black letter developed in US. In other hand I do agree that licensors tend to take the view that it does still achieve the spirit of the license (end users are assured of being able to obtain source code), but I just wanted to remark the inconsistency, and the different interpretation that it may have specially in others jurisdiction like latin america countries. Many thanks, Gustavo. 

El 08-08-2018, a la(s) 09:00, license-discuss-request at lists.opensource.org escrib:

> Send License-discuss mailing list submissions to
>    license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
> 
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    license-discuss-request at lists.opensource.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    license-discuss-owner at lists.opensource.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of License-discuss digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 4 (Bruce Perens)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 22:50:26 -0700
> From: Bruce Perens <bruce.perens at opensource.org>
> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 4
> Message-ID:
>    <CAGaT-eB+7yw-Pxx5eL522pGZN0+Gc1aLJbAC=Oo5hkQn3D4_0w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> This came up for me regarding an automobile media center containing Linux
> and other Free Software. It seemed to me that this part would eventually be
> traded by auto dismantlers, etc. My customer was a major auto part
> manufacturer with deep pockets and potentially many automobile brands
> integrating the part. I told them to fulfill the source code distribution
> responsibility for all downstream parties, and to publish contact
> information for their dealers, etc. to use if anyone asked about "source
> code", and ultimately it's on their public web site. As far as I'm aware,
> this is the default which very many manufacturers of retail items have
> settled upon.
> 
> There are things you should consider before distributing the source code
> with the product. Nobody keeps the box, the manual, and the included
> software CD. These things go in landfills. If you convey the source code on
> the products own storage media, about 1 in 10,000 users is going to
> download it before erasing it, and you've made the product that much harder
> to install for the other 9999 by adding an additional step of deleting the
> source code. And then when some user figures out that they _do_ want the
> source code, it's gone, and the manufacturer can say "I gave it to you
> once" instead of providing it online.
> 
> The burden of providing source code on a web site is not a high one. It's
> overstating to call it "unlimited liability", even if it may be a
> never-ending task.
> 
>    Thanks
> 
>    Bruce
> 
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 3:53 PM, David Woolley <forums at david-woolley.me.uk>
> wrote:
> 
>>> On 07/08/18 21:53, Gustavo G. M?rmol 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>> _lists.opensource.org
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering
> Standards committee chair, license committee member, co-founder, Open
> Source Initiative
> President, Open Research Institute
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180807/810036d3/attachment-0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 6
> **********************************************