On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 01:12:59PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:39:36AM -0700, Randolph Bentson wrote:
> > >
> > > If the distributor elects to distribute the object code or executable
> > > form under clause 3b, one might reasonably argue that the distributor
> > > need only distribute the source to those third parties in possession
> > > of the written offer which must be included. Others may argue that
> > "Accompany it with a written offer, ..., to give any third party, ..., a
> > complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code..."
> > This is non-ambiguous. You might _not_ "reasonably argue" about it, the
> > "any third party" leaves no room for other interpretations.
> Think about this logically. Suppose a company releases a product and
> (maybe) accompanies it with such a written offer (I mean, how could you know
> for sure if you hadn't seen it?). You call the company up to try to enforce
> the offer. They say, "What offer?" You say, "the written offer that
> accompanied some copies of your product." You can't cite the text of the
> written offer, you can't specify any specific person they made the offer to.
> Why specify a written offer if it just meant that you had to offer it?
-- "Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are." -- Martin Schulze - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 22:00:29 EST