Sveasoft's Violations

[Matthew Flaschen]

Okay.  That seems clear enough. Obviously, if the Sveasoft work is based 
on GPLed OpenWRT code (and it sounds like it is), they must distribute 
the whole program (or at least the OpenWRT part, if they can reasonably 
claim it is independent), under the GPL.  Section 6 states "You may not 
impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the 
rights granted herein."  Attempting to deny redistribution rights is a 
restriction.  Thus, OpenWRT is seems eligible to sue Sveasoft for 
copyright infringement.

Matt

Jeffrey Leung wrote:
> Yes, I fully understand that, but the thing is that Sveasoft is 
> disallowing their customers to redistrubite the software and the people 
> at OpenWRT found out that they were using their source code in their 
> products. OpenWRT doesn't really have a business model I presume, but 
> clearly Sevasoft has violated the terms of the GPL by disallowing their 
> customers to redistrubite the code itself.
> 
> On 8/21/06, *Matthew Flaschen* <superm40 at comcast.net 
> <mailto:superm40 at comcast.net>> wrote:
> 
>     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
>      >
>      >
> 
> 
>