[OT] some weird GPL licensing questions

[Roberto Alsina]

> On Monday 09 February 2004 22:39, Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> > On Monday 09 February 2004 22:12, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>> >> Alexander Neundorf <neundorf at kde.org> wrote:
>> >> > So here we go:
>> >> > AFAIK the GPL mainly says that if you have the binary version of
>> >> > something you have the right to get the sources of this version.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, but only _from_ the person who gave you the binary.  If you give
>> >> binar+source to party B and party B give a binary-only to party C,
>> then
>> >> party C can't force _you_ to give source.
>> >
>> > This is new to me. Which part of the GPL says this ?
>>
>> It's more like, no part says you have to.
>
> I think the gpl faq says something different:
>
> "My friend got a GPL-covered binary with an offer to supply source, and
> made a
> copy for me. Can I use the offer myself to obtain the source?
>
> Yes, you can. The offer must be open to everyone who has a copy of the
> binary
> that it accompanies. This is why the GPL says your friend must give you a
> copy of the offer along with a copy of the binary---so you can take
> advantage
> of it. "

That is the exact opposite of the original question. In the FAQ, the user
got a binary +written offer, not binary+sources.

-- 
 ("\''/").__..-''"`-. .         Roberto Alsina
 `9_ 9  )   `-. (    ).`-._.`)  ralsina at kde.org
 (_Y_.)' ._   ) `._`.  " -.-'   KDE Developer (MFCH)
  _..`-'_..-_/ /-'_.'
(l)-'' ((i).' ((!.'             Buenos Aires - Argentina
Imminentizing the eschaton since 1971.