Sveasoft's Violations

[Matthew Flaschen]

You're correct.  They have the option of distributing source or 
distributing a written offer valid for all third parties.  Sony sounds 
clearly in violation (assuming they're using external GPL code).  They 
have to at least provide a written offer (that is valid immediately) for 
the 1.1 binary code.

Matt

David A. Desrosiers wrote:
> 
>> Not distributing corresponding source for any binary distribution, 
>> including "pre-release", is a violation.
> 
> 
>     I think you meant "providing", not distributing. They don't have to 
> "distribute" source with every binary, they just have to make it 
> available when requested by anyone who can obtain the binary.
> 
>     I've already fought this one with the lawyers on our side in a case 
> against a pretty large company who took our project in full and called 
> it their own (removing our names from the About box and such), sold it 
> to customers who then sold it to hundreds of thousands of other 
> customers. Not fun.
> 
>     Sony used to do something very shady and similar too, where they 
> would release binaries for version 1.0 of POSE without source, then 
> release v1.1 in binary with 1.0 source. They claimed that they were 
> "cleaning up the source" for the current version, which is why they were 
> always 1 version behind. I argued that "cleaned up source" produced a 
> different binary (which would also have to have its source available).
> 
> 
> David A. Desrosiers
> desrod at gnu-designs.com
> http://gnu-designs.com
> 
>