On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 03:49:44AM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Andreas Bombe wrote:
>
> >Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:40:48 +0200
> >From: Andreas Bombe <andreas.bombe@munich.netsurf.de>
> >To: Mike A. Harris <mharris@meteng.on.ca>
> >Cc: Joseph Elwell <jelwell@yahoo.com>,
> > Linux Kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
> >Subject: Re: Linux GPL violations.
> >
> >On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:28:30AM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Joseph Elwell wrote:
> >> >I recently got a virign webplayer
> >> >(http://www.virginconnectme.com/). It runs Linux as
> >> >it's operating system. There's no mention of Linux or
> >> >the GPL in the license that is included in the manual.
> >> >In fact the license in the manual concerning the
> >> >"Software" is rather restrictive. And there's no
> >> >mention of how to obtain the source for the kernel.
> >>
> >> Hmm. I don't know for sure that a product using Linux must state
> >> that it does, however if you know it does and can prove that, I
> >> believe you can ask them for the source, and the source of any
> >> modifications must be provided.
> >
> >If they distribute GPL software in binary form they do have to either
> >include the source or a written offer for the source. GPL clause 3 a)
> >and b). If they don't include source and don't lose a word about that
> >they are violating the license.
>
> Correct, however unless their own source includes GPL they don't
> need to provide THEIR source.
Correct. But the GPL code is still there, and that's what it's all
about.
> Only source of GPL and any
> modifications. Providing source can be as simple as saying
> ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/ in an email...
No. Read clause 3 of the GPL. Distributions of executables generated
from GPL code require it to be accompanied either with the source or a
written offer for the source. They have to make the offer, not wait for
email.
If they go for the written offer, they have to distribute the sources
themselves. Referring to those sources from which you got the
unmodified code is only valid for noncommercial distribution (clause
3.c). Selling a hardware/software combination looks quite commercial to
me.
It's the distributors task to offer the source, not the receiver's to
find out by luck that there is GPL'd code in the product so that they
may ask for source.
-- Andreas E. Bombe <andreas.bombe@munich.netsurf.de> DSA key 0x04880A44 http://home.pages.de/~andreas.bombe/ http://linux1394.sourceforge.net/- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 21:00:18 EST