On 31/10/19 20:23, gameonlinux@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
RMS:
Could you share your thoughts, if any, of why no one will sue GrSecurity
("Open Source Security" (a Pennsylvania company)) for their blatant
violation of section 6 of version 2 of the GNU General Public License?
Both regarding their GCC plugins and their Linux-Kernel patch which is a
non-separable derivative work?
They distribute such under a no-redistribution agreement to paying
customers (the is the only distribution they do). If the customer
redistributes the derivative works they are punished.
IANAL, but see after my signature an email about a similar case.
Unfortunately some pieces of that story are lost to bitrot and broken
links, but the text quoted there is from a former GPL compliance manager
at the FSF.
tl;dr, the GPL does not forbid GrSecurity from rejecting money from
people that have exercised their rights under the GPL. And anyway, if
anything it would be a breach of contract law (similar to some episodes
involving gay marriage) and not copyright.
Should a future GPLv4 cover this case? Is it even possible? I have no
idea and this is off topic anyway, so let's all cut this thread short.
Paolo
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.org.freifunk.wlanware:251
[...]
Subject: [WRT54G] FSF fully aproces the Sveasoft subscription model
Date: Freitag 18 Juni 2004 00:47
From: "sveasoft" <james.ewing-yJk5bNGmrfNWk0Htik3J/w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: WRT54G-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The final word on the Sveasoft subscription model has been rendered
by the FSF. The FSF concludes that the Sveasoft model is fully
compliant with the GNU license stipulations.
Transcript:
Okay, so here is the Sveasoft business model, as I understand
it:
1. Sveasoft produces GPL'ed code which runs on a GNU/Linux based
router.
2. Sveasoft distributes pre-releases of their software on a
subscription basis and provides priority support to the subscribers.
3. The pre-releases are offered under the GPL and subscribers
are entitled to distribute them publicly if desired.
4. If a subscriber *does* redistribute the pre-release code
publicly, before it becomes a production release, they are
considered to have "forked" the code and do not receive future
pre-releases under the subscription program.
5. Once a pre-release works its way through the testing
program and becomes a production release, it is made available under
the GPL for public download, both "free-as-in-speech" and "free-as-in-
beer".
James, please step in here if I've missed anything, or if I
haven't accurately characterized some piece of the above.
I look forward to getting the FSF compliance lab's feedback on
Sveasoft's business model. Thanks for your help!
Hi Rob,
I would just underscore that whenever we distribute binaries they
are *always* accompanied by the source code.
Subscribers are free to do whatever they like with the
pre-releases with the proviso that if they distribute it publicly
we are not responsible for support and they need to develop the
code further themselves from that point forward.
I see no problems with this model. If the software is licensed
under the GPL, and you distribute the source code with the binaries (as
opposed to making an offer for source code), you are under no obligation to
supply future releases to anyone.
Please be clear that the subscription is for the support and
distribution and not for a license.
Peter Brown
GPL Compliance Manager
Free Software Foundation