On 07/08/18 21:53, Gustavo G. Mármol wrote:
That´s to say, regardless of the quantities of commercial resellers that it could be in a "distribution binary product´s chain" the original distributor/manufacturer would be the party that in practical terms would provide "the source code offer" to the "final licensee or end users" (despite the fact that the original distributor/manufacturer has no contractual relationship with the commercial redistributor´s end user/customer) and not the commercial redistributors (authorized by the original distributor/manufacturer to distributes their products).
The whole public licence concept is based on the idea that rights can be given without a direct contract.
The final distribution step can be non-commercial, leading to an unlimited liability on the last commercial distributor.
As I remarked, up-thread, it is fairly clear that the intent is to strongly encourage commercial distributors to provide the source code at the same time as the binary. By doing that, they no longer have any obligation.
I think the practice of making the offer at the top of distribution also applies to embedded linux systems in the UK, e.g. set top boxes. Although it may technically violate the licence, I think that licensors tend to take the view that it does still achieve the spirit of the licence, namely that end users are assured of being able to obtain a copy.
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
