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 17:29, 28 February 2006 jonas (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff		Revision as of 20:34, 28 February 2006 ciaran (Talk | contribs) two possible outcomes Next diff →
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	Party A builds a machine that will only run binaries signed by party B. Party B is not required to give its signing keys, but party A is--except he doesn't have it, since he never got it from party B. What happen(s)? (Take off every "sig"? :D)	+	'''Situation''': Party A builds a machine that will only run binaries signed by party B.
		+
		+	'''Outcome #1''': Party B is not required to give its signing keys, but party A is--except he doesn't have it, since he never got it from party B. What happen(s)? (Take off every "sig"? :D)
		+
		+	[[User:ciaran]]: Maybe party A is ''not'' required to give its signing keys? if party A has not distributed GPLv3'd code, the requirements in the GPLv3 cannot apply to party A. This would mean that there is a problem which GPLv3 does not solve. The other alternative is that the firmware (or other software) in Party A's device could be considered a work based on Party B's code (a derivative work) and would therefore have to be distributed under the GPLv3 - and the outcome would be that the Party A's cannot distribute their device because they cannot comply with the GPLv3.

---

Revision as of 20:34, 28 February 2006

Situation: Party A builds a machine that will only run binaries signed by party B.

Outcome #1: Party B is not required to give its signing keys, but party A is--except he doesn't have it, since he never got it from party B. What happen(s)? (Take off every "sig"? :D)

User:ciaran: Maybe party A is not required to give its signing keys? if party A has not distributed GPLv3'd code, the requirements in the GPLv3 cannot apply to party A. This would mean that there is a problem which GPLv3 does not solve. The other alternative is that the firmware (or other software) in Party A's device could be considered a work based on Party B's code (a derivative work) and would therefore have to be distributed under the GPLv3 - and the outcome would be that the Party A's cannot distribute their device because they cannot comply with the GPLv3.