2014-07-23, 10:00
To make an issue of this someone needs to:
1. Buy one
2. Establish that it contains GPL code - run a few of their binaries through the "strings" command for telltale text.
3. Request the source code.
Then assuming that comes up with a violation, the copyright owner needs to take action, which is likely to be expensive.
The history of GPL violation cases brought by the FSF seems to have resulted in contrition and a promise to comply. IE the offender s have been educated, and the problem given publicity.
EDIT: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
Also report every violation you see. Small distros like this often contain busybox (a kind of swiss pocketknife of tools written for small systems) and the busybox authors have been quite prepared to sue, with the backing of the FSF.
b) being the relevant provision.
1. Buy one
2. Establish that it contains GPL code - run a few of their binaries through the "strings" command for telltale text.
3. Request the source code.
Then assuming that comes up with a violation, the copyright owner needs to take action, which is likely to be expensive.
The history of GPL violation cases brought by the FSF seems to have resulted in contrition and a promise to comply. IE the offender s have been educated, and the problem given publicity.
EDIT: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
Also report every violation you see. Small distros like this often contain busybox (a kind of swiss pocketknife of tools written for small systems) and the busybox authors have been quite prepared to sue, with the backing of the FSF.
(2014-07-23, 09:45)topfs2 Wrote:YOu don't need to provide the source at the same time as you distribute the binary:(2014-04-11, 09:33)Plebian Wrote: As far as my knowlegde goes on GPLv2, you're forced to share base and or customization to the system. I know they can sell it, but they still have to give out their source (right?)
Since people are sometimes confused by this, he needs to give out the source with the binary. i.e. to be compliant, you don't always need to provide it publically, as long as its provided to those that have received the binary. So if he has the source available in the package, that is enough. It is generally not enough to provide it on requests though, but there is some disagreement on this and I can't recall what the last lawsuit yielded (not xbmc lawsuit, something else).
Obviously, the receiver of the code has full GPLv2 rights and is free to make the source publically available.
Quote: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) being the relevant provision.
