Changeset - dfcd7ef4aeae
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
Martin Michlmayr (tbm) - 10 years ago 2014-04-24 23:12:21
tbm@cyrius.com
Consistent usage of "noncommercial"
1 file changed with 1 insertions and 1 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
compliance-guide.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -413,49 +413,49 @@ Any Town, US 99999 \\
 
\\
 
Please write ``source for product $Y$'' in the memo line of your
 
payment.
 

	
 
You may also find a copy of the source at
 
\verb0http://www.example.com/sources/Y/0.
 

	
 
This offer is valid to anyone in receipt of this information.
 
\end{quote}
 

	
 
There are a few important details about this offer.  First, it requires a
 
copying fee.  GPLv2 permits ``a charge no more than your cost of
 
physically performing source distribution''.  This fee must be reasonable.
 
If your cost of copying and mailing a CD is more than around \$10, you
 
should perhaps find a cheaper CD stock and shipment method.  It is simply
 
not in your interest to try to overcharge the community.  Abuse of this
 
provision in order to make a for-profit enterprise of source code
 
provision will likely trigger enforcement action.
 

	
 
Second, note that the last line makes the offer valid to anyone who
 
requests the source.  This is because v2~\S~3(b) requires that offers be
 
``to give any third party'' a copy of the Corresponding Source.  GPLv3 has
 
a similar requirement, stating that an offer must be valid for ``anyone
 
who possesses the object code''.  These requirements indicated in
 
v2~\S~3(c) and v3~\S~6(c) are so that non-commercial redistributors may
 
v2~\S~3(c) and v3~\S~6(c) are so that noncommercial redistributors may
 
pass these offers along with their distributions.  Therefore, the offers
 
must be valid not only to your customers, but also to anyone who received
 
a copy of the binaries from them.  Many distributors overlook this
 
requirement and assume that they are only required to fulfill a request
 
from their direct customers.
 

	
 
The option to provide an offer for source rather than direct source
 
distribution is a special benefit to companies equipped to handle a
 
fulfillment process.  GPLv2~\S~3(c) and GPLv3~\S~6(c) avoid burdening
 
noncommercial, occasional redistributors with fulfillment request
 
obligations by allowing them to pass along the offer for source as they
 
received it.
 

	
 
Note that commercial redistributors cannot avail themselves of the option
 
(c) exception, and so while your offer for source must be good to anyone
 
who receives the offer (under v2) or the object code (under v3), it
 
\emph{cannot} extinguish the obligations of anyone who commercially
 
redistributes your product.  The license terms apply to anyone who
 
distributes GPL'd software, regardless of whether they are the original
 
distributor.  Take the example of Vendor $V$, who develops a software
 
platform from GPL'd sources for use in embedded devices.  Manufacturer $M$
 
contracts with $V$ to install the software as firmware in $M$'s device.
 
$V$ provides the software to $M$, along with a compliant offer for source.
 
In this situation, $M$ cannot simply pass $V$'s offer for source along to
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)