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

Wed Aug 8 21:19:59 UTC 2018

It's also possible for a company, including the upstream manufacturer, to
formally contract to perform another entity's GPL source code fulfillment.

On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Scott Peterson <speterso at redhat.com> wrote:

> Gustavo --
>
> There is no reason that a distributor of a product that includes software
> licensed under the GPL cannot use an upstream supplier's written offer as a
> part of compliance with the source availability requirement of the GPL. The
> point of option c is to say that for certain non-commercial distribution,
> passing along the upstream written offer is sufficient. Option b does not
> preclude use of the upstream written offer: merely passing along that
> written offer is not by itself sufficient; the offer actually needs to be
> an effective offer--requests are actually fulfilled.
>
> Consider a downstream distributor of a product that includes GPL-licensed
> software. That distributor includes its upstream supplier's written offer.
> That written offer is real; requests sent in response to that written offer
> are fulfilled. That downstream distributor has not failed to comply with
> the GPL merely because it did not write its own written offer and did not
> not implement its own separate fulfillment process for receiving requests
> and sending source code responses. This use of an upstream supplier's
> effective written offer complies with the GPL. If the upstream supplier
> disappears or otherwise fails to fulfill requests based on the offer, then
> the downstream distributor has a problem; unlike someone qualifying under
> option c, the commercial distributor is not off the hook simply because it
> passed on the offer.
>
> If what matters is the name on the offer (not whether the offer is
> effective), then that would be a GPL that serves the interests of
> troll-oriented "compliance enforcement", not the interests that the GPL
> seeks to serve. I do not believe that that is what is intended in the GPL.
>
> -- Scott
>
> Scott K Peterson
>
> Senior Commercial Counsel
>
> Red Hat, Inc.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:18 AM Gustavo G. Mármol <
> gustavo.marmol at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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@
>> 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
>>> **********************************************
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-
>> discuss_lists.opensource.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180808/bff4a460/attachment-0001.html>