Sveasoft's Violations

[Matthew Flaschen]

Jeffrey, I'm not quite sure what you're reporting.  Some background 
about Sveasoft, aOpenWRT, the product and both companies or 
organizations business models (if any) would be helpful.  Darren is 
completely right that companies don't have to distribute GPL binaries to 
anyone under any circumstances.  The only obligation is to distribute 
source (or a written offer of source) with any binaries.

Matt Flaschen

Darren wrote:
> Jeffrey Leung wrote:
> 
>> After doing some reading, I do have a strong belief that Sveasoft is 
>> violating the terms under the GPL licensce. The developers over 
>> aOpenWRT have revoked their rights to use the software, but still they 
>> are using that same GPL code to make their software. I understand that 
>> they can sell the software on a subscription basis, but clearly they 
>> can not forbid people to redistrubite it.
> 
> I'm not sure, im a newbie when it comes to the legality of the GPL, but 
> I don't think they have to redistribute the binaries.  Think about 
> redhat, they don't have to redistribute the binaries of there enterprise 
> linux, but the source code they do, and they do that.
> 
> So unless sveasoft doesn't allow redistribution of the source code, its 
> legal. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.
> 
> --DmB
> 
>