<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=us-ascii" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
* Alex Hudson wrote, On 16/10/07 09:12:
<blockquote cite="mid:1192522349.2761.25.camel@laptop.alexhudson.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, 2007-10-16 at 12:49 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This specific point doesn't seem to contradict common thinking,
though. Why should "Here, *I made this*, you can have a copy and do
stuff with it under FOO conditions" bind the person granting that
permission to the same conditions? I can't think what common thinking
would make that leap of logic.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
It wouldn't necessarily bind someone to the same conditions, but there
is effectively an agreement there on the same text.
</pre>
</blockquote>
The same way if I let someone use my property under certain conditions
for a purpose, I am also then eternally bound to use my own property
only according to those conditions?<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1192522349.2761.25.camel@laptop.alexhudson.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
The "contract" versus "license" thing is mostly disinteresting; it's a
jurisdictional thing, and in many places a license is [part of] a
contract. I don't think the discussion is really about that though; it's
about what effects if any the GPL has on a licensor.
</pre>
</blockquote>
If the distributor owns the work, then he does not distribute through
the GPL but through rights of ownership.<br>
The GPL grants additional distribution rights to others that may be
used by those who require them.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1192522349.2761.25.camel@laptop.alexhudson.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
The obvious test case would be if a licensor distributed copies of their
software in binary-only form with a written offer to give the source:
under a strict "permissions only" reading, a licensee cannot enforce
that.
</pre>
</blockquote>
AFAIK contract law in my country suggests that unless the licensee has
given something in return it would not be part of a valid contract, and
the written offer would be unenforcable.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1192522349.2761.25.camel@laptop.alexhudson.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
However, I wouldn't be surprised if a licensee could get some kind of
remedy if the licensor doesn't release source, particularly if the
software was sold to them - the GPL would almost certainly then be part
of the contract.
</pre>
</blockquote>
The GPL will only be part of the contract if it is ACTUALLY part of the
contract (read the contract).<br>
As the sole-owner licensor does not need GPL permissions in order to
distribute and so is not bound by GPL constraints for so distributing.<br>
<br>
Sam<br>
</body>
</html>