From: Arnt K. <ar...@c2...> - 2009-03-18 17:23:21
|
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:17:05 +1300, James wrote in message <49C...@go...>: > Curtis Olson wrote: > > > > Here's a question: Does a 3rd party have the right to ask for the > > modified source code, even if none of the entities receiving the > > modified program don't care to ask for the source code? > > Anybody who gets the binary is under the GPL entitled to the source - > "gets the binary" is the operative phrase here. > > As Melchior pointed out above me nobody who gets the binary (or > source) is required to distribute it further, and if they don't do > so, they don't need to give the source (or offer thereof) to anybody. > > However from memory you also can't restrict the right of people TO > distribute it if they get it, so you can't say "here's the software, > it's GPL, but you must sign this other agreement which says you won't > distribute it to anybody". ..such an "other agreement" would also add another, unnecessary, contra-productive contract law constraint, which would dump all (civil court) litigation cost on _us_, rather than keep them with the violator(s) and the governments in criminal court law enforcement of copyright law "on software piracy." ..on top of those civil court litigation cost risks, comes the case law risks, where the criminal court judges could try to build their verdicts on precendent from civil law contract litigation e.g. in the interest of "due process economy." ;o) ..appealable, _if_ you have the money, like Microsoft. ;o) ..stay GPL fundamentalists, become GPLv3 fundamentalists. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. |