3 ms·
> the argument would be that technically the GPL says you should be able to get source code for the program from Y, even though you didn't buy their product P -
by kelnos 2y ago
> the argument would be that technically the GPL says you should be able to get source code for the program from Y, even though you didn't buy their product P - you were harmed by their refusal to do what the GPL requires, so you can sue them.
I don't think that's the case. Whenever I see discussion about GPL violations, the copyright holder is the one who has to go after the violator (and often getting them to do something is difficult, because legal challenges can be expensive); the consensus seems to be that users who receive the software in a manner not compliant with the GPL don't have standing to sue. I'm not sure if a user has ever tried, though, so not sure if this has been tested in court.
- tialaramex 2y agoSFC versus Vizio is exactly what you say doesn't exist. The SFC deliberately brought a case where they don't own the copyright, and says they are harmed and here's why the court should find for them.
- kbenson 2y agoI assume that's because even if they aren't the original rights holder, they still have standing because they (as the public) were given rights under the GPL implicitly by anyone using the GPL, for the GPL covered items. Since they were denied those rights, they were harmed, and thus have standing. At least that would be my "layman that finds court cases and discussions of them interesting so consumes that as entertainment fairly regularly" best guess.