[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy

From: amicus_curious
Subject: Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:19:42 -0500

"Hyman Rosen" <> wrote in message">
ZnU wrote:
If we're talking about Party A redistributing Party B's unmodified GPL'd work without making the source available, this may be true. But this is trivial, since the source is available to anyone who wants it in this instance from Party B. If a court found against the GPL in a case along these lines, nothing substantial would change.

Untrue. The FSF very clearly spells out its philosophy. It believes
that it is an affirmative benefit for users to have the four freedoms,
that it is harmful to users to deny them any of those freedoms, and in
using the GPL, it acts for the benefit of those users and to prevent
them from being harmed by being denied their freedoms or not being
informed about them when they have those rights. To the extent that
party B fails to honor the terms of the GPL, the FSF as copyright
holder believes that harm is being caused to B's users.

The simplest thing you're missing in "just get it from A" is that
without proper compliance with the GPL from B, users will not know
what rights they have to the software they receive, or its provenance,
or where to obtain its source.

In some sort of abstraction, that may be true, but in any practical case anyone with the ability to modify an embedded software module is certainly going to be aware of the FOSS issues and would need no such prompting. The value of the requirement and hence the harm caused by its omission approaches zero in any real case and that is what the court most recently decided in the JMRI case in refusing to grant the injunction.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]