Are you saying that in the general case if you send someone a written offer for something and then don't honour it, you are in breach of contract?

That doesn't sound right to me.

A written offer is not the same thing as a contract.

▲

dspillett 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

Joker_vD 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

▲

teddyh 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

abdullahkhalids 4 hours ago | parent [-]

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

▲

teddyh 4 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

abdullahkhalids 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Ah.. Thanks

> c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution.

	▲	immibis 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So according to the legal theory expressed in this thread so far, nobody can sue anybody and there's no obligation to provide source code. The copyright holder couldn't sue because the license was followed (an offer was provided) and the end user couldn't sue because the offer doesn't have to be followed up on. Or, instead of theorycrafting reasons why it shouldn't work, you could "just" sue them and see if the judge agrees.

▲

ww520 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The customer spends money to buy the product along with the source code offered. It's part of the transaction. Not honoring part of the transaction is a breach of contract.

▲

teddyh 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe it’s not technically “breach of contract”, and an offer might or might not be a contract. But if you don’t honor an offer you made, you must surely be guilty of something. Otherwise, all offers would be meaningless and worth nothing.

▲

jstanley 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think you're guilty of anything for failing to honour an offer in most cases.

	▲	Retric 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		An offer is legally binding in that when someone acts based on that offer you can be liable for damages. This does not force you to honor the original offer though.
	▲	kkjjjjw 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Such offer is as legally binding as any tender. Of course a contract dispute could go either way.

▲

5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

woah 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And what are the damages?

▲

kgwxd 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think they're just saying the GPL doesn't really cover consumer/distributor (dis)agreements, it only covers copyright. While the spirit of the GPL is user-first, it still has to be realized within the confines of copyright law. Even though many people might conflate the spiritual goal and the legal agreement, it doesn't grant "users" any extraordinary legal powers.

It's not illegal to not honor written offers, it's illegal to distribute copyrighted material in violation of it's license.

▲

cxr 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's not what they're saying.

On the shelves are three insulin pumps: one with a 5-year warranty, one at a bargain barrel price that comes with no warranty, and one accompanied by a written offer allowing you to obtain the source code (and, subject to the terms of the GPL, prepare your own derivative works) at no additional charge any time within the next three years.

Weighing your options, you go with pump #3. You write to the company asking for the GPL source. They say "nix". They're in breach.

▲

schmuckonwheels 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The GPLv2 under which Linux is licensed does not prohibit that insulin pump from bricking itself if you tried to install "your own derivative work" that wasn't signed by the manufacturer.

This is not only possible but also prudent for a device which can also kill you.

	▲	fn-mote 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Possibly true, but irrelevant to the post to which you are replying. The argument is over providing you the source code.

▲

TZubiri 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So gpl is a licensor-licensee contract, if code and license is not shared to the user, then there is no contract to which the user is a party, rather the user is a beneficiary.

The offer of source code seems to be a way to facilitate the conveyance of source code through opt-in means separately from the object code rather than some legal trickery to create a user-licensee contract.

While the offer may indeed convey a licensee-user obligation, a compliant distribution would attach a license anyway, converting the user into a licensee and licensor to licensee in a recursive fashion

I wonder if lawyers specialize in this, it sounds very cool and not at all standard law, but somehow compatible with contract law

IANAL