Subject: RE: distributing GPL libreries
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:59:22 -0700

Actually, Larry Rosen didn't write that; Scott Shattuck did. I'll encourage
him to speak for himself. 

/Larry



> -----Original Message-----
> From: dtemeles@nvalaw.com [mailto:dtemeles@nvalaw.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 9:04 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: distributing GPL libreries
> 
> This is not legal advice -
> 
> Larry Rosen wrote:

[LR:] Oh no, he didn't. 
> 
> "As third parties are not a) other branches of the same government
> institution, b) other divisions and/or subsidiaries of the same
> corporation, c) those who  are working for hire or otherwise
> consulting for you etc, there are a host of scenarios where you can
> benefit from GPL code without reciprocating."
> 
> Larry, where does the GPL define "third parties"?  I confess that I
> have not searched far and wide, but I do not see anything that would
> necessarily exclude the 3 categories you mention from the definition
> of third parties.  It would appear that this is a state law contract
> interpretation issue that could vary from state to state.
> 
> Also, the definition of "convey" referneces "other parties" rather
> than "third parties".  I suggest that the issue is not as clear as
> might first appear from your response.
> 
> Very truly yours,
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> Quoting Scott Shattuck <scott.shattuck@gmail.com>:
> 
> >
> > On Jul 15, 2008, at 12:53 AM, David Woolley wrote:
> >
> >> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> >>
> >>> [LR:] Why should anyone want to discourage linking with non-GPL code?
> What
> >>> does FSF's preference have to do with anything?
> >>
> >> For a start the FSF's preference is relevant because they are an
> >> example of someone who wants to discourage the use of their code in
> >>  programs which are not "free" by their definitions.  Basically
> >> it's  about not benefitting from the library unless you allow
> >> people to  benefit from your program in the same way.
> >>
> >
> > If only that were true. The GPL explicitly allows a consumer of the
> > library to benefit from the library without allowing others to benefit
> > from their program in the same way -- except when they happen to ship
> > the resulting work to one or more third parties. As third parties are
> > not a) other branches of the same government institution, b) other
> > divisions and/or subsidiaries of the same corporation, c) those who are
> > working for hire or otherwise consulting for you etc, there are a host
> > of scenarios where you can benefit from GPL code without reciprocating.
> >
> > I'd go so far as to say that the GPL isn't about freedom for the
> > developer, it's about freedom for the consumer of the code (who just so
> > happens to often be another developer). But the focus is on ensuring
> > freedom to those who consume the code more than on what's best for the
> > original developer (at least in so far as making sure the original
> > developer's altruism is rewarded by seeing any/all updates or fixes to
> > their code finding their way to the world at large).
> >
> > ss
>