🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:35:22 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote:
>Isaac wrote:
>> So in other words, you must distribute or give the binaries to someone else
>> in order to trigger the provide source code or an offer clause.
>
>You don't need to "trigger" the clause.  It is there and always in effect. 
>There is no event that "activates" it.  It could be written with some sort of
>"trigger" language, but it isn't.  It is written as an affermative requirement
>that copies of the executable must be accompanied by the right to
>redistribute, and either the source code itself or the right obtain the source
>code.
>
I'm no longer certain that we are talking about the same thing.  If you
copy but don't distribute for example by installing linux on your computer
from a binary only disk, do you believe that there is some responsibility
to accompany such a copy with source?  If you do I suspect you are one
of an extremely small minority.
>> Even if you don't have the source code, and I'm sure lots of linux users
>> don't have the source code for all the executables they use, you don't have
>> to go fetch the source code in order to give yourself permission to copy
>> binaries on your own computer.
>
>All these users have the right to obtain and redistribute the source code. 
>That right "accompanies" any copies of the executables they make.  The actual
>source code doesn't need to "accompany."  Either the source code itself or the
>right to obtain it is sufficient to satisfy GPL.  There is no problem here.
>
But we are not discussing rights to source they have with respect to the 
person who gave them their binaries.  I think we are in agreement on that 
point.  We are discussing responsibilites those users incur because of their 
own copying of binaries.  In other words, what conditions do the users have
to meet simply because they are making non fair use copies of binaries on
computers that they own.  I am saying there are no such actions to be
taken until they in turn give the binaries to someone else. 

You seem to be saying that all copying of binaries (except fair use and
copying associated with executing a binary) creates responsibility even though 
there is no apparent person available to whom the responsibility can be
discharged.

I copy binaries to a CD that I will eventually give away to a friend.  It
is my belief that I don't have to give or promise any source to anyone
until I give them the CD.  You seem to think something else.

I copy, modify, compile into binaries, and copy and execute the resulting 
executables of GPLed source code on my own system very often.   I just
don't see anyone caring a wit about what license I use for that code
until I try to give it to someone else.   I don't see any conflict with
paragraphs in the GPL that talk about modifying works, because none
of the responsibilites described in the GPL are meaningful until I try
to distribute the results.

Isaac