GPL compliance

[Alexander Skwar]

ubuntu at rio.vg wrote:
> 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.

Is that actually true? I can't believe that (which doesn't
mean anything, that's certainly true *G*). What should somebody
stop from distributing his program? Further, I'd rather say,
that it's the other way around - you need to specify, what's
not allowed. But that's a guts feeling and very likely depends
on the country where, hmm, the distributor? (or who?) sits.

Hm. Well. On the other hand. You might be right, as it's impossible
for an author to give up all the rights on his work. For example,
he'll always be the author and has certain rights and obligations
that are associated with this.

But it's still hard to believe - what should stop an author
from distributing his program?

> 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.

Well, I suppose you know that this is wrong. For example, the reader
is allowed to make copies of passages for his use. Or say, we've got
music - other artists (which are "readers", end users) may use short
clips for their own music.

So, no, the end user is never without rights. At least not yet.

> 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.

I don't understand what you're getting at.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
Vulcans do not approve of violence.
		-- Spock, "Journey to Babel", stardate 3842.4