They're involved in the distribution
Posted Jul 10, 2007 22:54 UTC (Tue) by rickmoen
In reply to: They're involved in the distribution
Parent article: Microsoft's proclamation on GPLv3
No, you have received a piece of "GPLv2 or any later version" software, which is critically different from "a piece of GPLv3-covered software".
It is critically different in some other contexts, but not this one, which specifically concerned which of those two options I elected in the hypothetical. It's difficult to fathom how you could possibly have missed my meaning. I suspect you're somehow still hung up on your prior misconception that I'd claimed downstream recipients can dicatate what licensing applies upstream, which of course I said absolutely nowhere at all. But, regardless of where this bizarre interpretation is coming from, our discussion is logically at an end, for reasons detailed below.
The distributor chooses which apply to a particular distribution.
To the contrary: The redistributor has no such discretion, as setting licensing terms is by law the copyright owner's monopoly.
On that extremely key point, we apparently have no common grounds for discussion. You state that redistributors can pass along to downstream only the one of two licensing options specified by the codebase owner; I say that this interpretation is clearly contrary to fundamental copyright law. There is no point in further discussion, I think.
to post comments)