<div dir="ltr"><br>With respect to the sentence: <div><br></div><div><i>"I mention the dealers and distributors because the three-year obligation is theirs as well, but they generally have no idea how to fulfill it".</i><div><br></div><div>I would agree that from GPLv2 text would emerge that commercial redistributors must provide they own source code offer, and they cannot be beneficiaries of the original distributor/manufacture ´s source code offer. </div><div><br></div><div>Despite this, and regarding commercial resellers GPLv2 (section 3.a and 3.b) obligations imposed with respect to "source code offer", what I have observed, at least in Latin America´s countries is somehow the concept of "to provide source code to final licensee". 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). Many Thanks, Gustavo. </div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">El sáb., 4 ago. 2018 a las 9:00, <<a href="mailto:license-discuss-request@lists.opensource.org">license-discuss-request@lists.opensource.org</a>> escribió:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send License-discuss mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:license-discuss-request@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-discuss-request@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:license-discuss-owner@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-discuss-owner@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of License-discuss digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: Source code availability after end of life (Bruce Perens)<br>
2. Re: Source code availability after end of life (Thorbj?rn Vynne)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 20:21:16 -0700<br>
From: Bruce Perens <<a href="mailto:bruce.perens@opensource.org" target="_blank">bruce.perens@opensource.org</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Source code availability after end of<br>
life<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CAGaT-eDSgkEjAeb5teW8596Df2-%2BoXR16DvvtAmOcnHX3Cz64w@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">CAGaT-eDSgkEjAeb5teW8596Df2-+oXR16DvvtAmOcnHX3Cz64w@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Is this really unclear? If you didn't distribute source code with the<br>
binary, you need to make sure that it's kept available for three years<br>
after the last time you distributed a binary copy, or the last time that<br>
any of your business relationships such as dealers and distributors did. I<br>
mention the dealers and distributors because the three-year obligation is<br>
theirs as well, but they generally have no idea how to fulfill it.<br>
Fulfilling the source code responsibility for them is better than having<br>
them (and you) get sued, and then having them sue you.<br>
<br>
Because this is license-discuss, and I'm not here to market my services, I<br>
will speak with your attorney _for_free_ if they need some clarity.<br>
<br>
Thanks<br>
<br>
Bruce<br>
<br>
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,<br>
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of<br>
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:<br>
<br>
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable<br>
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections<br>
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,<br>
<br>
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three<br>
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your<br>
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete<br>
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be<br>
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium<br>
customarily used for software interchange; or,<br>
<br>
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer<br>
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is<br>
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you<br>
received the program in object code or executable form with such<br>
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:02 AM, David Woolley <<a href="mailto:forums@david-woolley.me.uk" target="_blank">forums@david-woolley.me.uk</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> On 02/08/18 08:09, Thorbj?rn Vynne wrote:<br>
><br>
> For an end-of-life commercial product that are using GPL based software,<br>
>> can any one clarify if its a requirement to keep having making the source<br>
>> available even though no more products are shipped or serviced.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> Please explain what is not clear in the wording of the GPL. In any case,<br>
> if it is unclear, only your own lawyer can give you an opinion on which you<br>
> can safely rely.<br>
><br>
> Also note that the GPL strongly hints that any commercial distributor<br>
> should supply the source at the time they supply the binary; otherwise they<br>
> enter into a commitment to supply the source to non-customers.<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> License-discuss mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss</a><br>
> _<a href="http://lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">lists.opensource.org</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering<br>
Standards committee chair, license committee member, co-founder, Open<br>
Source Initiative<br>
President, Open Research Institute<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180803/1b8f2614/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180803/1b8f2614/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2018 09:57:47 +0200<br>
From: Thorbj?rn Vynne <<a href="mailto:thorbjorn.vynne@gmail.com" target="_blank">thorbjorn.vynne@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Source code availability after end of<br>
life<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CA+mZhVhKjUt=BjB-KorGZJUwpKQ=<a href="mailto:99139anGy8A8DRRoP0JC2g@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">99139anGy8A8DRRoP0JC2g@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Got it<br>
<br>
Thanks Bruce.<br>
<br>
On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 6:17 AM Bruce Perens <<a href="mailto:bruce.perens@opensource.org" target="_blank">bruce.perens@opensource.org</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> Is this really unclear? If you didn't distribute source code with the<br>
> binary, you need to make sure that it's kept available for three years<br>
> after the last time you distributed a binary copy, or the last time that<br>
> any of your business relationships such as dealers and distributors did. I<br>
> mention the dealers and distributors because the three-year obligation is<br>
> theirs as well, but they generally have no idea how to fulfill it.<br>
> Fulfilling the source code responsibility for them is better than having<br>
> them (and you) get sued, and then having them sue you.<br>
><br>
> Because this is license-discuss, and I'm not here to market my services, I<br>
> will speak with your attorney _for_free_ if they need some clarity.<br>
><br>
> Thanks<br>
><br>
> Bruce<br>
><br>
> 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,<br>
> under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of<br>
> Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:<br>
><br>
> a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable<br>
> source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections<br>
> 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,<br>
><br>
> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three<br>
> years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your<br>
> cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete<br>
> machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be<br>
> distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium<br>
> customarily used for software interchange; or,<br>
><br>
> c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer<br>
> to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is<br>
> allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you<br>
> received the program in object code or executable form with such<br>
> an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:02 AM, David Woolley <<a href="mailto:forums@david-woolley.me.uk" target="_blank">forums@david-woolley.me.uk</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> On 02/08/18 08:09, Thorbj?rn Vynne wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> For an end-of-life commercial product that are using GPL based software,<br>
>>> can any one clarify if its a requirement to keep having making the source<br>
>>> available even though no more products are shipped or serviced.<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>> Please explain what is not clear in the wording of the GPL. In any case,<br>
>> if it is unclear, only your own lawyer can give you an opinion on which you<br>
>> can safely rely.<br>
>><br>
>> Also note that the GPL strongly hints that any commercial distributor<br>
>> should supply the source at the time they supply the binary; otherwise they<br>
>> enter into a commitment to supply the source to non-customers.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> License-discuss mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering<br>
> Standards committee chair, license committee member, co-founder, Open<br>
> Source Initiative<br>
> President, Open Research Institute<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> License-discuss mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
><br>
> <a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180804/ad18e1c5/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180804/ad18e1c5/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 4<br>
**********************************************<br>
</blockquote></div>