[lkml]   [2005]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: freebox possible GPL violation
    David Lang wrote:

    > On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Helge Hafting wrote:
    >> If the box downloads a linux kernel through the DSLAM network, then
    >> someone is clearly distributing linux kernels through the DSLAM network.
    >> I would guess it is the same guys, because relying on someone else
    >> providing
    >> them with kernels is a risky business. But whoever is on the other end
    >> of the DSLAM net have to offer the source as well, because they _are_
    >> distributing kernels.
    >> The fact that the user isn't supposed to know how this box work
    >> doesn't change anything, of course. The GPL says those who
    >> distribute the work - it doesn't matter that they don't tell the
    >> customer that they're given a linux kernel. They still have to offer
    >> the source if asked.
    > the argument that they are making is that they are only moveing the
    > kernel within their own companies equipment, and therefor it doesn't
    > count as 'distribution'

    Interesting argument, but it breaks for at least two reasons:
    1. You can buy that box instead of just hiring it. That moves kernels
    "outside the company",
    for money even.
    2. It doesn't matter if they only move kernels withing their own
    companys equipment.
    If they lend a customer equipment containing a linux kernel, then
    they're lending
    them a linux kernel. Lending is distribution!

    > agree with this argument or not, but please acknowledge this point of
    > view rather then pretending that they have no argument at all and are
    > just plain refusing.

    The argument might be fine, if they were moving linux kernels into
    company equipment
    used by company personell only. (I.e. linux-powered
    desktops/servers/gadgets for their employees.)
    And it might not. Maybe they actually have to distribute source to
    employees too, if they
    request it. The GPL only mentions recipients, no exceptions for
    "internal company use". A company
    may perhaps demand that the employees never request the source, though.
    Or perhaps
    "internal use" is covered by the company being a "legal unit".

    People breaking the GPL should be taken seriously. Fortunately, the
    solution is easy for
    GPL-breakers. Break someone else's license, and they have to pay
    damages. Break the GPL,
    and all you need to do is to stuff some source code onto a public
    (web/ftp)server - and all is fine again.

    The situation is so cheap and _easy_ to rectify, that is one reason
    people gets so pissed off at
    a violation. It is not as if complying with the GPL would be any kind
    of burden to them.

    Helge Hafting
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-10-06 11:21    [W:0.033 / U:14.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site