object code distribution requirements in GPLv2 and GPLv3 [LWN.net]

object code distribution requirements in GPLv2 and GPLv3

Posted Jul 12, 2007 8:54 UTC (Thu) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483)
In reply to: object code distribution requirements in GPLv2 and GPLv3 by JesseW
Parent article: An update on Yoggie GPL compliance

The GPLv3 is too new for me to comment on, since I haven't studied it thoroughly, but I'd like to focus on the wording of clause 3(b) of the GPLv2:

Accompany it with a written offer [...] to give any third party ...

Notice that it's not just an offer that is valid for any third party. It must be an offer to supply the source to any third party. If I get such an offer, and then they refuse to supply the source to any third party, then they didn't honor the offer they made to me.

As a reminder, I'd like to point out that such an offer doesn't have to be a physical token. It must be "written", but it could be written on a web page or inside an iso9660 image. This is illlustrated by clause 3(c), which says:

Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer ...

So, it doesn't talk about passing on the offer or making copies of the offer. Information about the offer is sufficient. This makes sense if the original offer was already to supply source to any third party. Then knowing about the offer is just as good as having a "copy", whatever that means exactly.

One detail that's always amused me is that the GPLv2 does not actually say that you have to honor these offers :) It's not clear to me who would have standing to sue if you don't.

(Log in to post comments)

object code distribution requirements in GPLv2 and GPLv3

Posted Jul 12, 2007 15:44 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link]

The word 'offer' is a technical term in law, a contract has two phases, offer and acceptance. "I'll take you to Dover for forty quid", "Here's forty quid" is the formation of a trivial contract. If you choose clause 3(b) of the GNU GPL you must make an offer to everyone. Anyone in the world might accept it. That's such a dangerous thing (think Carbolic smoke ball) to do that I'm surprised any company chooses 3(b) now that 3(a) is so cheap to comply with.

The copyright holder has standing because you didn't obey the terms of the license to their copyrighted work.

You can say "I don't accept your license", but that means you're admitting to copyright infringement, which is usually a criminal offense, and certainly enough reason for the court to order you to cease distribution.

The immediate recipient of the offer probably has standing because the GPL terms are an implicit component of any contract between you and them for the supply of this software. In particular if money changed hands then I feel pretty sure they'd have standing.

If a third party is trying to use the offer, they probably have standing but they'll need a really good lawyer because they need to make it perfectly clear why this obligation exists between two parties that have no direct relationship. It's definitely possible, there are famous cases where this sort of argument was made, but it's a lot harder than the copyright holder example.

In summary, probably lots of people have standing to sue.