GPL compliance

[ubuntu at rio.vg]

Alexander Skwar wrote:
>
>> You have the GPL backwards.  The *user* doesn't have the right to the
>> source code.  Instead, the *distributor* is required to provide the
>> source code.  Do you see the difference?
> 
> Hm, you might be right - but isn't it so, that the user has got
> some rights which are the results of the requirements the GPL
> has? I mean, if the user cannot make the distributor do something
> because of the GPL, then I really don't understand what the GPL
> is about. Is it just some "label" a distributor can attach to
> his program, but which cannot be enforced, as there's nobody
> who can require the rights?
> 
> I don't know. The way you put it, it sounds *very* strange.
>

It's a bit odd when you're on the user side, but essentially, yes, the
user can't make the distributor do anything under the GPL.  The GPL is a
copyright license.

It goes like this:

1) By default, a computer program cannot be distributed.
2) The author places the GPL on the program.
3) The program can now be distributed or modified, as long as the
requirements are met.

The user never enters into it.  As I was saying in another e-mail, the
difference between one side being required to make available and the
other side having a right to access it sounds like semantics, and would
be in normal conversation.  However, legally, there is a distinction.

Now, what happens when the GPL is violated?  For instance, let's say
Ubuntu decided they weren't gonna release the sources.  If they do this,
their legal ability to distribute the software is revoked.  They could
then be sued by the author of any program that they continue to
distribute, and possibly by the FSF, as the aggregate.

Consider it like books.  A book publisher is given the right to copy a
book by the author, but the reader (the end user, if you will) has no
rights.

To go further, let's say I wrote a book and gave Random House the right
to freely publish it, as long as they also put an extra chapter up on
the internet for anyone to read.  The person who buys the book isn't
guaranteed to be able to read it on the net, as they might not have net
access.

Furthermore, let's say Random House decides they don't feel like putting
up the chapter on the net.  Does the "user" of the book have the right
to sue?  No.  Random House is smart enough not to mention that as part
of the purchase.  However, the author can certainly sue, as Random House
has violated the license he gave them.