[ale] STORY LINK: Vendor slammed for 'selling' patches

[Chris Fowler]

If none of these programs are covered by the GPL then why should they
give out free upgrades. It seems that they licenses their stuff by
maintenance agreements.  Maybe you buy their hardware and by paying them
every year you get a license to the software.  This is one way to keep
stuff off the used market.  It will not stop people from violating the
license but it will stop honest companies from using something they have
no license to use.


On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 13:47, John Mills wrote:
> ALErs -
> 
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 Sigmascape1 at cs.com wrote:
> 
> > Not good.
> > 
> > Vendor slammed for 'selling' patches 
> > http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105_2-5181825.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed
> 
> <soapbox> As I understand it (&IANAL!!), a vendor delivering software
> under the GPL must make available to those to whom the software was
> delivered, the sources of the delivered software for the subsequent three
> years. This can be done at the time of sale (i.e., including a copy of the
> source with the purchased product), by releasing them to a public
> repository, or (one supposes) by some other mechanism.
> 
> I do not understand this to imply a responsibility to provide either
> sources or executables of product upgrades to purchasers of the
> pre-upgrade versions of the product. It is also quite usual to release
> GPL'd software under a disclaimer of responsibility for product defects:
> often it is not guaranteed to do anything, good or bad.
> 
> Whatever subsequent responsibilities of vendor to purchaser and vice-versa
> should as a matter of good practice be agreed at the time of sale. (Will
> anyone who thinks they understand Microsoft's EULA please stand up.  
> Anyone??)
> 
> We are left with a business decision as to which customers should receive 
> updates, patches, phone support, etc. Some companies will give a free 
> product upgrade if you purchase the superceeded version within a 
> specified interval or the new release's issue. (Borland has offered a 
> 90-day window in which such upgrades could be purchased for a nominal 
> $10.00 -- I don't know if the policy is still in force or which products 
> it may cover.)
> 
> By the way, are "RealSecure" or "BlackIce" in any way covered by the GPL?  
> That would surprise me. If so, any customer receiving the updates could
> make them freely available to anyone they chose, and ISS would have no
> legal recourse. The GPL _does_ work like that: even if you pay for GPL
> released materials, you can give them away (provided _you_ meet the other
> release conditions of the GPL).
> </soapbox>
> 
> Now - a quick grab for the trusty asbestos gloves and welding goggles!
> 
> Cheers.
>  - John Mills
>    john.m.mills at alum.mit.edu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale