GPL compliance

[ubuntu at rio.vg]

Gary W. Swearingen wrote:
> 
> Of course there is a difference, but the user nevertheless DOES have
> the right (some rights, anyway) to the source code.  The distributor
> and every other owner of rights to the source code has licensed
> (assuming acceptance, etc.) those rights to the user.  The user now
> has the rights, but they're of little value if he can't get a copy of
> the source.  The GPL just has this funky little clause 3 to facilitate
> getting a copy (at least for three years) by making it a duty of the
> publisher to provide the source, etc.
> 

In common parlance, you might say the user has the right to it, but in
the more legal sense, that isn't the case.  For the most part, the
distinction between one side being forced to provide and the other
side's right to acquire is small.

>> The GPL, simply put, is a set of requirements that a distributor must
>> meet before the software can be distributed.  It is not a set of user
>> rights.
> 
> (Side issue: There is also a difference between "distributing" and
> "publishing" in formal IP talk, though the GPL tends to use it
> wrongly.  Publication is distribution to the public.  The GPL
> explicitly permits the distribution of binary-only derivatives, say,
> within a company (or other domains, debatably), while it prohibits
> publication of the same.)

True, but as the lawyers say, for the terms of this discussion, it is a
difference without distinction. :)

>> The legal requirement, however, is satisfied by making the
>> sources available for download.
> 
> Gotta agree.  And a lot better for the user than offering it on
> 9-track tape like "customary" meant when GPL was first used.  That
> wouldn't satisfy it these days, IMO.
> 

Oh, c'mon, you don't customarily use your reel-to-reel?!? :)  In all
seriousness, the GPL v2 that is currently used was written back in 1991,
and we're all glad it specified the "customary", otherwise things like
distribution on CD wouldn't be acceptable...