Written offers in products with downloads (was Re: Emtec Movie Cubes)

[Brett Smith]

On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 15:45 -0400, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 12:27 -0700, Chris DiBona wrote:
> > Did the documentation contain an offer to provide the source code?
> 
> The .zip archive I downloaded does not have it nor any acknowledgement
> about the use of GPL code. For the rest, no idea. Ask the OP.

I haven't looked at any of these downloads myself.  But I'd like to make
a general point that whether or not a physical product includes a
written offer for source has no bearing on the question of whether or
not GPLv2-covered software for download is being distributed in
compliance with the license.

When a company distributes object code over the Internet to the general
public -- even if that software is only *intended* to be used by owners
of a particular device -- that's a distribution that's completely
separate from the distribution of the software on the device itself, and
it needs to comply with GPLv2 section 3 on its own terms.  In other
words, either source code or a written offer for source needs to
accompany *that* copy of the object code.  A written offer accompanying
the product alone would not be sufficient to fully comply with GPLv2 in
this case.

If a GNU/Linux distribution provided object code on their FTP site, but
source code CDs only came with purchased boxed copies, we wouldn't say
they were in compliance, would we?  The same rules apply to device
manufacturers.

I agree that it would be useful to try to find out whether or not the
physical product has source or a written offer -- it might be helpful to
take a different approach in dealing with the company if that's the
case.  But no matter what, object code that you can download that isn't
accompanied by source or a written offer is *always* a violation of
GPLv2.

I hope this helps clear up a few of the finer points about the license.

Best regards,

-- 
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation