[cyphar]

> The GPL is a set of conditions that others have to obey if they want to use your code.

Or distribute it. If someone distributes something to you under a license that explicitly states that it gives you certain permissions, they can't arbitrarily decide to retract that license. That's sort of like saying "if I write a song, and give you a license that allows you to get the sheet music from me, I can refuse to give you sheet music if you ask". If you didn't want to give me sheet music, why did you explicitly give me the right to do it? On some level it sounds like a breach of contract, though of course licenses aren't contracts.

Also you've forgotten that maybe Publii is based on some GPL source code, so they might not be the sole author and thus are infringing on someone else's copyright by not obeying the GPL.

> So Microsoft is bound by the license on MS Word?

Yes, of course they are! That's the whole point! If you read Section B of the Microsoft Word 2013 License[1], it states quite explicitly that:

* In §B4, all disagreements outside of small claims or negotiations will be handled in a binding arbitration. This applies to both parties.

* In §B5, neither party can engage in a class-action suit (they must all be done on an individual basis).

* In §B7, it states that claims have to be filed within one year. That also will apply to both parties.

They also give you a limited warranty for non-trial software in the last section, which obviously they are also bound by. Obviously terms in the license that don't limit Microsoft don't affect them. But with the GPL, it explicitly states that distributors must provide the corresponding source code.

I think I know what you're trying to say, "are you saying that Microsoft employees are bound to the single-seat terms of the license". But that's missing the point -- Microsoft employees aren't given software under the license I just discussed, they're given software under a different license (implicitly) because they work for Microsoft.

[1]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/useterms

[bachmeier]

> Also you've forgotten that maybe Publii is based on some GPL source code, so they might not be the sole author and thus are infringing on someone else's copyright by not obeying the GPL.

My comment was three sentences and I said exactly that in the third sentence.

> that's missing the point -- Microsoft employees aren't given software under the license I just discussed, they're given software under a different license (implicitly) because they work for Microsoft

Okay. That's exactly what I said. The entity releasing code under the GPL is not bound by the conditions of the GPL, and does not need to distribute the source.

[cyphar]

> My comment was three sentences and I said exactly that in the third sentence.

You didn't say exactly that, you said:

> How can you going to sue someone for violating the copyright on code that's not yours? If you see someone selling copied Tom Clancy novels on the street, you can't sue them. Only Tom Clancy and anyone else to whom he grants the copyright.

While I understand your point, the fact that you cannot personally sue them does not change the fact that they're infringing on someone's copyright (so _someone_ could sue them). The point of this discussion is not whether you or I could sue them, but rather are they breaching the GPL by not releasing source.

> That's exactly what I said. The entity releasing code under the GPL is not bound by the conditions of the GPL,

Odd, because that's not what I said. At all. What I said was that a Microsoft employee is bound by a different license than a random consumer. This was immediately after I explicitly outlined several cases where Microsoft's EULA clearly places restrictions on Microsoft.

Microsoft distributes software under a EULA, and they have to act in accordance with what that EULA says (just like you do as the recipient of said software). The EULA is not symmetric in its restrictions (unlike the GPL) so I recognise the cause of confusion, but just because Microsoft isn't bound by the no-redistribution policy of the EULA (because that's explicitly only required of people who are receiving the software) doesn't mean the EULA doesn't apply to them...