4 ms·

> If they refuse to provide source code, they are not abiding by the terms of the license This is at best a simplification. The most common case is that a com

by teddyh 4y ago

> If they refuse to provide source code, they are not abiding by the terms of the license This is at best a simplification. The most common case is that a company has two options: Either provide the source code alongside every copy of the program, so that every recipient of the program has the source code already, or, alongside the program, provide a written offer, valid for three years, to provide source code on request. This offer, while required if the company chooses this option, is not part of the license! If a company does not provide source code on request, they have broken the promise provided by the offer, not the license, and can be sued for simply failing to uphold their promise. It then does not matter what the original licence says, or who the copyright holders are. And, of course, if a company provides neither the source code, nor such an offer of source code, they have already broken the license, and can be sued immediately; there is no need for anyone to request the source code. Doing so is just something many people do as an act of pure courtesy.

tsimionescu 4y ago
> If a company does not provide source code on request, they have broken the promise provided by the offer, not the license, and can be sued for simply failing to uphold their promise. By whom? In what way is the promise binding on that company? I can see some sense if the offer is provided to anyone receiving the binary from the company, in which case you could argue that it is a part of the distribution contract between the company and the recipient. But a third party doesn't seem to have any relationship, even if the promise nominally mentions ant third party. At best, you could argue that the original receiver of the code could sue the company for not providing code to a third party as per the promise. > And, of course, if a company provides neither the source code, nor such an offer of source code, they have already broken the license, and can be sued immediately Yes, but only by a copyright holder of that source code, not by a third party (not even by the person who received the binary code without a copy of the source or a promise to provide it on request). By the way, it should be noted that, per Stallman, it's perfectly valid for a company to sell GPL-based binaries and only distribute the source code to those who buy the binaries (though of course they must be allowed to distribute it further). So it's absolutely clear that a random person who neither purchased the product nor holds copyright in the GPL work has no standing whatsoever.
- teddyh 4y ago
  > By whom? In what way is the promise binding on that company? Are promises not binding? Can a company not get sued for breaking a promise? (I agree with the rest of your comment.)

by teddyh 4y ago

tsimionescu 4y ago

> If a company does not provide source code on request, they have broken the promise provided by the offer, not the license, and can be sued for simply failing to uphold their promise. By whom? In what way is the promise binding on that company? I can see some sense if the offer is provided to anyone receiving the binary from the company, in which case you could argue that it is a part of the distribution contract between the company and the recipient. But a third party doesn't seem to have any relationship, even if the promise nominally mentions ant third party. At best, you could argue that the original receiver of the code could sue the company for not providing code to a third party as per the promise. > And, of course, if a company provides neither the source code, nor such an offer of source code, they have already broken the license, and can be sued immediately Yes, but only by a copyright holder of that source code, not by a third party (not even by the person who received the binary code without a copy of the source or a promise to provide it on request). By the way, it should be noted that, per Stallman, it's perfectly valid for a company to sell GPL-based binaries and only distribute the source code to those who buy the binaries (though of course they must be allowed to distribute it further). So it's absolutely clear that a random person who neither purchased the product nor holds copyright in the GPL work has no standing whatsoever.

teddyh 4y ago
> By whom? In what way is the promise binding on that company? Are promises not binding? Can a company not get sued for breaking a promise? (I agree with the rest of your comment.)