Comment by dspillett
1 day ago
The written offer is part of the licence, as is the need to respond to that offer with the source code offered. It is all part of the same agreement.
A written offer on its own would not normally be directly enforceable in many (most?) jurisdictions, for the same sort of reason that retailers can't be held to incorrectly published prices (in the UK at least, a displayed price is an “invitation to tender”, not a contract or other promise) except where other laws/regulations (anti bait&switch rules for instance), or the desire to avoid fighting in the court of public opinion, come into effect.
But in this instance, the written offer and the response to that offer are part of the wider licence that has been agreed to.
> the same sort of reason that retailers can't be held to incorrectly published prices (in the UK at least, a displayed price is an “invitation to tender”, not a contract or other promise)
The hell? Over here, the price tags are a sort of public contract, to which the seller pre-commits. The seller forgot to change the tags? That's not the buyer's problem.
Since money has not exchanged hands, you could always decide not to buy at the counter. So atleast in the countries I have been, it is not legally binding.
it's still bait-and-switch
1 reply →
I don’t think so; I can’t recall any support for such a connection between the written offer and the GPL itself written into the GPL license text.
From section 4 [1]
> If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
Similar clauses in Sec 6.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html
That section (and similar in section 6d) is not about the written offer of source code. The written offer of source code is instead covered in section 6c.
2 replies →