maemo.org - Talk - View Single Post - Qt "stuck" at v5.6 in SFOS

	javispedro	2021-03-24 , 00:31
	Posts: 2,355 \| Thanked: 5,249 times \| Joined on Jan 2009 @ Barcelona	#23

Do note: I am not questioning that you need to provide the "encryption keys" if you transfer ownership.

I am questioning that you have to provide the "encryption keys" if you don't transfer ownership. i.e. the situation where a museum lets you use a touchscreen fixed device, or it lends you a tablet.

That is as absurd as claiming that if let you use a device of mine with GPL3+ software, temporarily or permanently, I would have to provide the source code of it. It's just absurd. No legal system is going to parse the license that way. There is even a FAQ item about it:

Originally Posted by https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LaptopLoan

If someone installs GPLed software on a laptop, and then lends that laptop to a friend without providing source code for the software, have they violated the GPL? (#LaptopLoan)

No. In the jurisdictions where we have investigated this issue, this sort of loan would not count as conveying. The laptop's owner would not have any obligations under the GPL.

What I am asking is precisely for evidence of any legal system of any country where the license was actually parsed in the way you described. An interpretation that
1. Contradicts the intention of the license, as evidenced by the FAQ
2. Contradicts _everyone else's_ reading of the license, to the best of my knowledge (I have never seen the license ever interpreted like that anywhere other than in this thread).
3. Is just a plain absurdity and would need for everyone to rethink the way they use software completely.

i.e. what is this "Dutch museum" story?

There are companies shipping products with GPLv3. Just not Jolla. Google ships products with GPLv3 software just fine.

Last edited by javispedro; 2021-03-24 at 00:56.

Quote & Reply |

The Following User Says Thank You to javispedro For This Useful Post:
juiceme