Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Rahul Dhesi]

thufir <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> writes:

>To my understanding, the buyer does have the right, under the GPL, to
>the source.  After, the GPL is targeted, you could say, at buyers to
>protect copyright owners.

>If no buyer has rights to the source, then that would make the GPL
>pointless, which, I suppose is your argument?

"Rights to the source" is not a useful phrase, as it does not
distinguish between the right to ask for the source (which the buyer
has), the right to redistribute the source once the source is available
(which the buyer has), and the right to enforce the seller's obligation
to provide the source (which the copyright owner has but the buyer does
not).
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/