object code distribution requirements in GPLv2 and GPLv3

object code distribution requirements in GPLv2 and GPLv3

Posted Jul 12, 2007 15:44 UTC (Thu) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167)
In reply to: object code distribution requirements in GPLv2 and GPLv3 by dark
Parent article: An update on Yoggie GPL compliance

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.

---

(Log in to post comments)