On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, you wrote:
> GPL 3.b says:
> 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,
> Doesn't that mean that as soon as Axim sells their camera,
> they have to provide the source to everyone who requests it
> (even if he didn't buy anything)?
It means that anyone that posesses a copy of the written offer may
request a copy of the source code.
If they never issued a written offer to anyone, and have distributed their
binaries, then they have not complied with GPL.
The problem now, is that the only ones that, legally speaking, have a
position where they can demand them to comply are the people whose
copyright has been infringed, i.e. Linus and others.
This is IMHO a significant weakness with the GPL concept. And one reason
why assigning copyright to FSF may be a good idea, since they have at
least *some* legal resources available to put at least a *certain* weight
behind their demands.
-- Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Voice: +47 22523641, 92022780 Fax: +47 22525899 Mail: Egil Kvaleberg, Husebybakken 14A, 0379 Oslo, Norway Home: http://www.kvaleberg.com/
This message resent by the email@example.com list server http://www.uClinux.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Apr 07 2002 - 00:01:33 EST