This website is an archive. It was used for drafting and public consultation on GPLv3 and version 3 of other GNU licenses which were published in 2007. For up to date information, see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html. For more information about this archive, see https://www.fsf.org/licensing/gplv3-archive

From GPLv3 Wiki

Revision as of 23:41, 25 January 2006 stefie10 (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff		Revision as of 01:11, 11 March 2006 a1kmm (Talk | contribs) comment Next diff →
Line 4:		Line 4:
	The stores might be in violation, since they can't distribute the source with the product. Since they do not have the source, perhaps this falls under the "Liberty or Death?" section, and they can't sell it at all? If that's the case, the manufactorer can't sell it so they have no incentive to set up this scheme, so maybe it doesn't matter. Or perhaps it falls under First Sale doctrine: stores don't accept the license, since they never use the software.		The stores might be in violation, since they can't distribute the source with the product. Since they do not have the source, perhaps this falls under the "Liberty or Death?" section, and they can't sell it at all? If that's the case, the manufactorer can't sell it so they have no incentive to set up this scheme, so maybe it doesn't matter. Or perhaps it falls under First Sale doctrine: stores don't accept the license, since they never use the software.
		+
		+	:I don't think that terminating the rights under the license makes them immune from legal action(disclaimer: the author of this text is not a lawyer, and is not giving legal advice). It is a license not a contract, so if the license is terminated, that does not retrospectively make any distribution legal.

---

Revision as of 01:11, 11 March 2006

A malicious manufactorer makes a router that runs Linux. They build the device, and distribute it to stores without the source code, thus violating the GPL. The stores agree to hold it for 60 days, and then put it on store shelves.

The manufacturer claims that they were going to distribute the source code with the product. However since they failed to do this 60 days ago, they are now immune as per the termination section. Therefore they do not have to distribute the source.

The stores might be in violation, since they can't distribute the source with the product. Since they do not have the source, perhaps this falls under the "Liberty or Death?" section, and they can't sell it at all? If that's the case, the manufactorer can't sell it so they have no incentive to set up this scheme, so maybe it doesn't matter. Or perhaps it falls under First Sale doctrine: stores don't accept the license, since they never use the software.

I don't think that terminating the rights under the license makes them immune from legal action(disclaimer: the author of this text is not a lawyer, and is not giving legal advice). It is a license not a contract, so if the license is terminated, that does not retrospectively make any distribution legal.