Possible GPL violation by Multitrode with pump station manager product.

[Henrik Nordström]

ons 2010-03-31 klockan 11:43 +0100 skrev Neil Brown:

> To my mind, this means *any* third party, and not any third party in  
> possession of a copy of the binary. However, under English law, I'd  
> consider it questionable whether a third party without a binary could  
> enforce this, as against the distributor, although this would not  
> affect the copyright owner from enforcing it.

The normal reading is as you say "any third party" without restrictions.
The spirit is however "any third party who possesses the object code"
and is how that section has been rewritten in GPLv3. Goes hand in hand
with how object code may be redistributed when received with a written
offer for sources.

Please note that GPL (both v2 & v3) does not allow restricting
non-commercial redistribution of object code received with an written
offer for sources. Or in other words anyone who have received the binary
object code together with a written offer for sources is permitted to
non-commercially redistribute the same together with a copy of the
written offer they received, and is from where the "any third party"
mentioned in GPLv2 comes. Commercial redistribution is however not
permitted under this clause and requires you to first obtain the sources
yourself so you can offer a copy of the sources.

This non-commercial requirement actually puts distributors, retailers &
stores selling equipment shipped with a written offer technically on the
non-compliance side as it's as far as I can tell only applicable in
direct sales, but I don't see much of a point in arguing about that
split hair. 

> Under GNU GPL 2, online accessiblity is insufficient - if the  
> distributor wishes to make use of the "written offer" approach, it  
> would need to offer the code on a "physical medium". It could, of  
> course, put the code in a repo., and, in all likelihood, the number of  
> requests for source on a DVD etc. might be low, but, to be compliant,  
> it would need to offer this.

True, but that distinction is more of an academic issue than practical
application of the license today, where online distribution is both
easier and cheaper to everyone involved.

But it's correct, the written offer for access to GPLv2 sources need to
provide information how to request (for a charge) a physical media with
the sources not only online distribution.  Actually online distribution
is not required or even mentioned at all in GPLv2. This is corrected in
GPLv3 where free of charge online distribution counts as valid means for
fulfilling the source requirements.

Imho hunting down vendors who in their written offer only provide free
of charge online source distribution with no mention of physical media
is plain stupid and counterproductive. In the same field as getting mad
at entities who in the past have failed to provide correct sources but
now are doing their best to comply in current & future releases.

Regards
Henrik