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.