undefined | Better HN

0 pointsonphonenow4y ago0 comments

You are adopting the SFC's flawed analysis here.

The rights to the code belong to the AUTHOR of the code. Random users have no rights. The GPL is a grant to someone to use code without payment. Failure to follow the GPL means the AUTHORS rights are restored and license to use freely revoked. Again, users have no claim in this situation.

This SFC interpretation of third party rights is ridiculous. I hope some of the bigger hitters in this space come out with some statements on this.

0 comments

pabs34y ago

As part of the GPL bargain, third parties have rights to the code too, just like second parties. And further downstream to everyone in the world.

onphonenowOP4y ago

No, this is false. I the distributor does not share their code to users, then their license from the AUTHOR is revocable by the copyright holder which is the author not the user.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

pabs34y ago

As part of the GPL bargain, third parties have rights to the code too, just like second parties. And further downstream to everyone in the world.

onphonenowOP4y ago

No, this is false. I the distributor does not share their code to users, then their license from the AUTHOR is revocable by the copyright holder which is the author not the user.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse