Is this a GPL violation case?

[mr]

You can include closed source software in the same distribution media (cd or
whatever) but you can not keep any actual modifications to gpl'd software
from being themselves covered by the gpl... it's perfectly fine for the
makers of opera browser to release ubuntu cd's with opera pre installed
without giving away the source code to opera as they are not making changes
to gpl source code in order to do that.

I don't really fully understand the next bit but using the nvidia binary
driver as an example, that is a grey area i think where the gpl2 is not
completely clear on whether the resulting work would be a derivative version
(and thus the driver would be covered by the gpl) - i don't fully understand
that bit my self so i am probably not completely correct there.

 >So are they only obliged to provide the source (or whatever) to someone
 >who has purchased their product? They are not oblidged to make it
 >publicly available or at least to anyone who asks?

As far as I know, this is correct. If someone supplies you with GPL software
then they are obliged to provide you with an offer of the source code as
well. They can charge a reasonable price for suppling it too.. like postage
costs.

Whoever supplies you with the gpl'd binary is responsible for seeing that
they comply with the terms of it's licence.. maybe a vendor has an agreement
with some upstream company who they would pass on such requests to but
ultimately, they are responsible.

I'm no expert and thats just my opinion on how the system is designed to
work.. I can have made some errors there so feel free to correct me if you
see something that doesn't make sense :)

Alan


On 5/14/07, Torsten Schlabach <tschlabach at gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > yes, any derivative of linux is equally covered
> > by the terms of the GPL
>
> Wouldn't that mean that there can never be any closed-source software on
> top of Linux? Or would a piece of software which a vendor sells that the
> user can install onto a Linux system be something different than a i a
> vendor bundles a Linux kernel together with proprietary closed-source
> software and sells this as a product as such. (Examples hat come to mind
> would for example be the SuSE Open Exchange Server)
>
> > In short, if they are selling it and you purchase it from them then
>
> So are they only obliged to provide the source (or whatever) to someone
> who has purchased their product? They are not oblidged to make it
> publicly available or at least to anyone who asks?
>
> > they are obliged to give you the source code. if you ask for it
>
> How would one ask "officially" enough?
>
> And also, who would I have to ask in case I am buying the product from a
> channel partner? The manufacturer or the vendor?
>
> Regards,
> Torsten
>
>
> mr schrieb:
> > yes, any derivative of linux is equally covered by the terms of the GPL
> > regardless of how many times it has been derived. Whoever distributes it
> > is obliged to provide the sources including their modifications (if any)
> > and extend the rights of the GPL to whoever they give copies of the
> > software to.
> >
> > In short, if they are selling it and you purchase it from them then they
> > are obliged to give you the source code.
> >
> > PS, sorry Torsten for sending this to you three times now :)
> >
> > On 5/14/07, *Torsten Schlabach* <tschlabach at gmx.net
> > <mailto:tschlabach at gmx.net>> wrote:
> >
> >     Dear list!
> >
> >     At a customer site, I came across an embedded Linux system which is
> >     built upon uCLinux, http://www.uclinux.org/.
> >
> >     The vendor of the system does not provide any pointers to the GPL at
> >     all; at least not that I would be aware of.
> >
> >     Unfortunately, I cannot find any license info about uCLinux as well.
> Is
> >     it sufficient that uCLinux contains the Linux kernel for the GPL to
> be
> >     applicable to uCLinux and would that then apply to the proprietary
> >     vendor product as well?
> >
> >     Regards,
> >     Torsten
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20070514/90524631/attachment.html