Subject: Re: Restriction on distribution by Novell?
From: "Ben Tilly" <btilly@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:53:54 -0700

On 9/26/06, Wilson, Andrew <andrew.wilson@intel.com> wrote:
> Ben Tilly wrote:
>
> > I believe you must be misremembering the conversation.
>
> > I do not see that language in
> > http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-draft-2006-07-27.html, which still claims to
> > be the most current draft.  That draft still says "any third party",
> > just like the GPL v2 does.  And I don't see how "any third party in
> > possession of the binary" is broader than "any third party."
>
> The operative language in the July draft isn't in section 6, it
> is back in section 5.  The July draft (sec. 5, para b) says
>
>         "You must license the entire covered work, as a whole,
>         under this license to anyone who comes into possession
>         of a copy."
>
> When you combine this new-to-v3 language with sec. 6, you
> get the new-to-v3 behavior of having to provide the sources
> to everyone who has the binary.

Sorry, it still doesn't read that way to me.

Section 5 says that anyone who has a copy of the software has a license.

Section 6 says that anyone who has your offer can get a copy from you.

The requirement in section 6 is a requirement on the distributer, it
is not a consequence of the wannabe distributee having a license.
Therefore you have to provide the source to third parties regardless
of whether they have a license (or a copy).

Cheers,
Ben