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

Wed Aug 8 15:00:38 UTC 2018

Bruce, just a few comments about what you have stated:

*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".  *

1-  *"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 website"*: My opinion is restricted to Argentina,
which is the country where I admitted to the bar: That fact (to assume
responsibility for third parties obligations) it does not change the
commercial redistributor obligations under what is expressly stated in the
license text, but certainly I do agree about what you have suggested in the
past, in the sense that it could help to reduce and mitigate potential
risks for compliance issues if that is agreed in the distribution agreement
between parties (that´s to say, in written).

2. With respect to: "*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". *I also agree that it could work for some business
scenarios but not for all. Some of the issues regarding "to have a list
with commercial distributors in the same webpage of the manufacturer"  when
the manufacturer operates worldwide are not directly related to open source
compliance, but most with who is "an authorized reseller to do business
with the manufacturer". Somehow this point is very sensitive since many
time commercial partner information publicly available in good faith by the
manufacturer have been misused and misrepresented to do business with
public entities (partner agreement has an express term, once expired should
be approved a new distribution agreement. many times the agreements are not
renewed due by non-performance or compliance issues. Having a commercial
distributor list country by country updated (date/time) is not feasible in
practical terms). As I said, in my experience manufacturer are jealous to
make public available who are they authorized country´s resellers to
distributes (except for worldwide OEM and ISV that are most recognizable
enterprises) their products (with GPL license obligations & 3.), especially
in countries where corruption index is no satisfactory, due to FCPA
regulations applicable in foreign countries.

El mié., 8 ago. 2018 a las 9:00, <
license-discuss-request at lists.opensource.org> escribió:

> 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
> **********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180808/ee5cf4e5/attachment-0001.html>