It's also possible for a company, including the upstream manufacturer, to formally contract to perform another entity's GPL source code fulfillment.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Scott Peterson <spete...@redhat.com> wrote: > Gustavo -- > > There is no reason that a distributor of a product that includes software > licensed under the GPL cannot use an upstream supplier's written offer as a > part of compliance with the source availability requirement of the GPL. The > point of option c is to say that for certain non-commercial distribution, > passing along the upstream written offer is sufficient. Option b does not > preclude use of the upstream written offer: merely passing along that > written offer is not by itself sufficient; the offer actually needs to be > an effective offer--requests are actually fulfilled. > > Consider a downstream distributor of a product that includes GPL-licensed > software. That distributor includes its upstream supplier's written offer. > That written offer is real; requests sent in response to that written offer > are fulfilled. That downstream distributor has not failed to comply with > the GPL merely because it did not write its own written offer and did not > not implement its own separate fulfillment process for receiving requests > and sending source code responses. This use of an upstream supplier's > effective written offer complies with the GPL. If the upstream supplier > disappears or otherwise fails to fulfill requests based on the offer, then > the downstream distributor has a problem; unlike someone qualifying under > option c, the commercial distributor is not off the hook simply because it > passed on the offer. > > If what matters is the name on the offer (not whether the offer is > effective), then that would be a GPL that serves the interests of > troll-oriented "compliance enforcement", not the interests that the GPL > seeks to serve. I do not believe that that is what is intended in the GPL. > > -- Scott > > Scott K Peterson > > Senior Commercial Counsel > > Red Hat, Inc. > > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 11:18 AM Gustavo G. Mármol < > gustavo.mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Bruce, just a few comments about what you have stated: >> >> *This came up for me regarding an automobile media center containing >> Linux and other Free Software. It seemed to me that this part would >> eventually be traded by auto dismantlers, etc. My customer was a major auto >> part manufacturer with deep pockets and potentially many automobile brands >> integrating the part. I told them to fulfill the source code distribution >> responsibility for all downstream parties, and to publish contact >> information for their dealers, etc. to use if anyone asked about "source >> code", and ultimately it's on their public web site. As far as I'm aware, >> this is the default which very many manufacturers of retail items have >> settled upon". * >> >> 1- *"I told them to fulfill the source code distribution responsibility >> for all downstream parties, and to publish contact information for their >> dealers, etc. to use if anyone asked about "source code", and ultimately >> it's on their public website"*: My opinion is restricted to Argentina, >> which is the country where I admitted to the bar: That fact (to assume >> responsibility for third parties obligations) it does not change the >> commercial redistributor obligations under what is expressly stated in the >> license text, but certainly I do agree about what you have suggested in the >> past, in the sense that it could help to reduce and mitigate potential >> risks for compliance issues if that is agreed in the distribution agreement >> between parties (that´s to say, in written). >> >> 2. With respect to: "*and to publish contact information for their >> dealers, etc. to use if anyone asked about "source code", and ultimately >> it's on their public web site". *I also agree that it could work for >> some business scenarios but not for all. Some of the issues regarding "to >> have a list with commercial distributors in the same webpage of the >> manufacturer" when the manufacturer operates worldwide are not directly >> related to open source compliance, but most with who is "an authorized >> reseller to do business with the manufacturer". Somehow this point is very >> sensitive since many time commercial partner information publicly available >> in good faith by the manufacturer have been misused and misrepresented to >> do business with public entities (partner agreement has an express term, >> once expired should be approved a new distribution agreement. many times >> the agreements are not renewed due by non-performance or compliance issues. >> Having a commercial distributor list country by country updated (date/time) >> is not feasible in practical terms). As I said, in my experience >> manufacturer are jealous to make public available who are they authorized >> country´s resellers to distributes (except for worldwide OEM and ISV that >> are most recognizable enterprises) their products (with GPL license >> obligations & 3.), especially in countries where corruption index is no >> satisfactory, due to FCPA regulations applicable in foreign countries. >> >> El mié., 8 ago. 2018 a las 9:00, <license-discuss-request@ >> lists.opensource.org> escribió: >> >>> Send License-discuss mailing list submissions to >>> license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license- >>> discuss_lists.opensource.org >>> >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> license-discuss-requ...@lists.opensource.org >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> license-discuss-ow...@lists.opensource.org >>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> than "Re: Contents of License-discuss digest..." >>> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. Re: License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 4 (Bruce Perens) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2018 22:50:26 -0700 >>> From: Bruce Perens <bruce.per...@opensource.org> >>> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 4 >>> Message-ID: >>> <CAGaT-eB+7yw-Pxx5eL522pGZN0+Gc1aLJbAC=Oo5hkQn3D4_0w@mail. >>> gmail.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>> >>> This came up for me regarding an automobile media center containing Linux >>> and other Free Software. It seemed to me that this part would eventually >>> be >>> traded by auto dismantlers, etc. My customer was a major auto part >>> manufacturer with deep pockets and potentially many automobile brands >>> integrating the part. I told them to fulfill the source code distribution >>> responsibility for all downstream parties, and to publish contact >>> information for their dealers, etc. to use if anyone asked about "source >>> code", and ultimately it's on their public web site. As far as I'm aware, >>> this is the default which very many manufacturers of retail items have >>> settled upon. >>> >>> There are things you should consider before distributing the source code >>> with the product. Nobody keeps the box, the manual, and the included >>> software CD. These things go in landfills. If you convey the source code >>> on >>> the products own storage media, about 1 in 10,000 users is going to >>> download it before erasing it, and you've made the product that much >>> harder >>> to install for the other 9999 by adding an additional step of deleting >>> the >>> source code. And then when some user figures out that they _do_ want the >>> source code, it's gone, and the manufacturer can say "I gave it to you >>> once" instead of providing it online. >>> >>> The burden of providing source code on a web site is not a high one. It's >>> overstating to call it "unlimited liability", even if it may be a >>> never-ending task. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Bruce >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 3:53 PM, David Woolley < >>> for...@david-woolley.me.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > On 07/08/18 21:53, Gustavo G. M?rmol 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 >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering >>> Standards committee chair, license committee member, co-founder, Open >>> Source Initiative >>> President, Open Research Institute >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_ >>> lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180807/810036d3/attachment-0001.html> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Subject: Digest Footer >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> License-discuss mailing list >>> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license- >>> discuss_lists.opensource.org >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> End of License-discuss Digest, Vol 78, Issue 6 >>> ********************************************** >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> License-discuss mailing list >> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license- >> discuss_lists.opensource.org >> > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license- > discuss_lists.opensource.org > > -- Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering Standards committee chair, license committee member, co-founder, Open Source Initiative President, Open Research Institute
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
