[License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 4
Gustavo G. Mármol
gustavo.marmol at gmail.com
Tue Aug 7 20:53:47 UTC 2018
With respect to the sentence:
*"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 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.
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.
El sáb., 4 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: Source code availability after end of life (Bruce Perens)
> 2. Re: Source code availability after end of life (Thorbj?rn Vynne)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 20:21:16 -0700
> From: Bruce Perens <bruce.perens at opensource.org>
> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Source code availability after end of
> life
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAGaT-eDSgkEjAeb5teW8596Df2-+oXR16DvvtAmOcnHX3Cz64w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Is this really unclear? If you didn't distribute source code with the
> binary, you need to make sure that it's kept available for three years
> after the last time you distributed a binary copy, or the last time that
> any of your business relationships such as dealers and distributors did. 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.
> Fulfilling the source code responsibility for them is better than having
> them (and you) get sued, and then having them sue you.
>
> Because this is license-discuss, and I'm not here to market my services, I
> will speak with your attorney _for_free_ if they need some clarity.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>
> 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
>
> a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
> source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
> 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
> or,
>
> b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
> years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
> cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
> machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
> distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
> customarily used for software interchange; or,
>
> c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
> to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
> allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
> received the program in object code or executable form with such
> an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:02 AM, David Woolley <forums at david-woolley.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On 02/08/18 08:09, Thorbj?rn Vynne wrote:
> >
> > For an end-of-life commercial product that are using GPL based software,
> >> can any one clarify if its a requirement to keep having making the
> source
> >> available even though no more products are shipped or serviced.
> >>
> >
> > Please explain what is not clear in the wording of the GPL. In any case,
> > if it is unclear, only your own lawyer can give you an opinion on which
> you
> > can safely rely.
> >
> > Also note that the GPL strongly hints that any commercial distributor
> > should supply the source at the time they supply the binary; otherwise
> they
> > enter into a commitment to supply the source to non-customers.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20180803/1b8f2614/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2018 09:57:47 +0200
> From: Thorbj?rn Vynne <thorbjorn.vynne at gmail.com>
> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Source code availability after end of
> life
> Message-ID:
> <CA+mZhVhKjUt=BjB-KorGZJUwpKQ=
> 99139anGy8A8DRRoP0JC2g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Got it
>
> Thanks Bruce.
>
> On Sat, Aug 4, 2018 at 6:17 AM Bruce Perens <bruce.perens at opensource.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Is this really unclear? If you didn't distribute source code with the
> > binary, you need to make sure that it's kept available for three years
> > after the last time you distributed a binary copy, or the last time that
> > any of your business relationships such as dealers and distributors did.
> 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.
> > Fulfilling the source code responsibility for them is better than having
> > them (and you) get sued, and then having them sue you.
> >
> > Because this is license-discuss, and I'm not here to market my services,
> I
> > will speak with your attorney _for_free_ if they need some clarity.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> > under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> > Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
> >
> > a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
> > source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
> > 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
> or,
> >
> > b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
> > years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
> > cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
> > machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
> > distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
> > customarily used for software interchange; or,
> >
> > c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
> > to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
> > allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
> > received the program in object code or executable form with such
> > an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 1:02 AM, David Woolley <
> forums at david-woolley.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/08/18 08:09, Thorbj?rn Vynne wrote:
> >>
> >> For an end-of-life commercial product that are using GPL based software,
> >>> can any one clarify if its a requirement to keep having making the
> source
> >>> available even though no more products are shipped or serviced.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Please explain what is not clear in the wording of the GPL. In any
> case,
> >> if it is unclear, only your own lawyer can give you an opinion on which
> you
> >> can safely rely.
> >>
> >> Also note that the GPL strongly hints that any commercial distributor
> >> should supply the source at the time they supply the binary; otherwise
> they
> >> enter into a commitment to supply the source to non-customers.
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-discuss mailing list
> > License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> >
> >
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180804/ad18e1c5/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 4
> **********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180807/829aa034/attachment.html>
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list