Re: [gnu.org #214016] GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox + code

["Shawn Starr via RT" <license-violation@fsf.org>]

They won't be distributing the source because of their new 
anti-distribution methods, they aren't providing the source because they 
don't want people to distribute the binaries any more either or know now the 
anti-distribution mechanism will work (which requires the user to enter a 
value to unlock the binary firmware and send a request to their servers).

It is this action that they are violating the GPL and that needs to be 
enforced. 

If they want to relicense their changes they need to not use GPL existing code 
which they are not doing. They have not added written any of this code from 
scratch and thus must distribute the source on request to those who get the 
binaries which they are not doing anymore.

What was true before of redistribution and being kicked out of the program is 
now not happening anymore as there is no code to distribute of the resulting 
binaries.

Shawn.

On November 9, 2004 07:07, Alan Cox via RT wrote:
> On Maw, 2004-11-09 at 00:11, novalis@fsf.org via RT wrote:
> > But if you distribute binaries, you must either include or offer source
> > code.  Do they do this?  What software do they include that FSF holds
> > copyright on?   Where can I check this?
> >
> > Do they include a copy of the GPL with the software?
>
> They include the GPL, they include the source nothing I can find they do
> violates the GPL.  They do appear to annoy a few people because their
> policy is that while you may join their early access process and get
> source if you redistribute that source then you get kicked off their
> program, but you are still allowed to distribute that source.