From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262152AbUKKAZR (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:25:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262156AbUKKAZQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:25:16 -0500 Received: from rt.gnu.org ([199.232.76.167]:43910 "EHLO rt.gnu.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262152AbUKKAW6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:22:58 -0500 Subject: Re: [gnu.org #214016] GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox + code From: "novalis@fsf.org via RT" Reply-To: license-violation@fsf.org In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-RT-Loop-Prevention: gnu.org RT-Ticket: gnu.org #214016 Managed-by: RT 3.0.8 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/) RT-Originator: novalis@fsf.org To: shawn.starr@rogers.com Cc: license-violation@gnu.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:23:07 -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I didn't realize linux-kernel was CC'd here. I'm going to take this off-list with Shawn, because I don't want to waste everyone's time. If anyone else has any information about this, please feel free to email me at . Thanks. On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 10:21 -0500, Shawn Starr via RT wrote: > REPLIES GO TO REQUESTORS BY DEFAULT. > > > > 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. > -- -Dave Turner GPL Compliance Engineer Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF