From valent.turkovic at gmail.com Tue Oct 6 12:59:24 2009 From: valent.turkovic at gmail.com (Valent Turkovic) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:59:24 +0200 Subject: LG violates GPL? Message-ID: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> http://digg.com/linux_unix/GPL_violator_LG_refuses_to_release_their_linux_source_code I found the link and thought to bring it to your attention. Is anybody aware of LG not providing source code with their products that use Linux? Cheers! -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, msn: valent.turkovic at hotmail.com From twaffle at gmail.com Tue Oct 6 14:35:26 2009 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 08:35:26 -0400 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80910060535t1e917667maed102dcfa310b3f@mail.gmail.com> Doesn't suprise me. Until the EFF can start suing people like mad and making money at it, they can't chase after everyone. So, here's the only alternative. Buy one, and figure out an app it's running, where the author actually cares. Then have HIM/HER go after LG. On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:59 AM, Valent Turkovic wrote: > http://digg.com/linux_unix/GPL_violator_LG_refuses_to_release_their_linux_source_code > > I found the link and thought to bring it to your attention. Is anybody > aware of LG not providing source code with their products that use > Linux? > > Cheers! > > -- > pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt > http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ > linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless > registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. > ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, msn: valent.turkovic at hotmail.com > > -- -- Thomas From k2heart at lge.com Wed Oct 7 03:53:13 2009 From: k2heart at lge.com (Kim Kyoungae) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 10:53:13 +0900 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> Hello. My name is Kyoungae Kim and I am dealing with the open source license compliance at LG electronics. We use open source code for some of our products and we mention that on the manual. Also we provide source code if it is requested via opensource at lge.com. For your information, we have already provided the source code to thinkliberty who wrote concerns about LGE's OpenSource license policy at digg.com Please feel free to contact opensource at lge.com if you have any questions. Thanks Kyoungae Kim. On Oct 6, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Valent Turkovic wrote: > http://digg.com/linux_unix/GPL_violator_LG_refuses_to_release_their_linux_source_code > > I found the link and thought to bring it to your attention. Is anybody > aware of LG not providing source code with their products that use > Linux? > > Cheers! > > -- > pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt > http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ > linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless > registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org > . > ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, msn: valent.turkovic at hotmail.com > From valent.turkovic at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 09:05:30 2009 From: valent.turkovic at gmail.com (Valent Turkovic) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 09:05:30 +0200 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> Message-ID: <64b14b300910070005k7f6fb138j706e639503ce8f3f@mail.gmail.com> So where can we get the source for LG TV's? Please provide some public link. Cheers. On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:53 AM, Kim Kyoungae wrote: > Hello. > > My name is Kyoungae Kim and I am dealing with the open source license > compliance at LG electronics. > > We use open source code for some of our products and we mention that on the > manual. > Also we provide source code if it is requested via opensource at lge.com. > > For your information, we have already provided the source code to > thinkliberty who wrote concerns about LGE's OpenSource license policy at > digg.com > > Please feel free to contact opensource at lge.com if you have any questions. > > Thanks > > Kyoungae Kim. > > On Oct 6, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Valent Turkovic wrote: > >> >> http://digg.com/linux_unix/GPL_violator_LG_refuses_to_release_their_linux_source_code >> >> I found the link and thought to bring it to your attention. Is anybody >> aware of LG not providing source code with their products that use >> Linux? >> >> Cheers! >> >> -- >> pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt >> http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ >> linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless >> registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. >> ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, msn: valent.turkovic at hotmail.com >> > > -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, msn: valent.turkovic at hotmail.com From armijn at uulug.nl Wed Oct 7 10:17:02 2009 From: armijn at uulug.nl (Armijn Hemel) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:17:02 +0200 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: <64b14b300910070005k7f6fb138j706e639503ce8f3f@mail.gmail.com> References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> <64b14b300910070005k7f6fb138j706e639503ce8f3f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1254903422.2507.0.camel@hibbert.loco> On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 09:05 +0200, Valent Turkovic wrote: > So where can we get the source for LG TV's? Please provide some public > link. Ehm, the answer was pretty clear I think: "Also we provide source code if it is requested via opensource at lge.com." armijn -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- armijn at uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group --------------------------------------------------------------------------- From valent.turkovic at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 10:34:07 2009 From: valent.turkovic at gmail.com (Valent Turkovic) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 10:34:07 +0200 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: <200910071644.36706.shane@opendawn.com> References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> <64b14b300910070005k7f6fb138j706e639503ce8f3f@mail.gmail.com> <200910071644.36706.shane@opendawn.com> Message-ID: <64b14b300910070134v7acbc2fcpf75c9740dfb720b9@mail.gmail.com> I sent them an email, when I get the source code I will let the list know. Valent. On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Shane Martin Coughlan wrote: > Valent Turkovic said: >> So where can we get the source for LG TV's? Please provide some public link. > > They don't have to provide a public link to the source code for GPLv2 > software. ?They need to provide the source code with the devices or a written > offer with the devices that offers to provide the source code to third parties > on request. > > As Kyoungae Kim has pointed out, source code for the LG products can be > requested from opensource at lge.com. > > Regards > > Shane > > -- > Shane Coughlan > Business and Technology Consultant > Opendawn > shane at opendawn.com > Phone: +81 (0) 909 7742404 / Fax: +81 (0) 878890288 > www.opendawn.com > -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, msn: valent.turkovic at hotmail.com From twaffle at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 13:57:14 2009 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 07:57:14 -0400 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: <64b14b300910070005k7f6fb138j706e639503ce8f3f@mail.gmail.com> References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> <64b14b300910070005k7f6fb138j706e639503ce8f3f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80910070457l6fe2e348xd7fdaebcaa220cd2@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Valent Turkovic wrote: > So where can we get the source for LG TV's? Please provide some public link. > Cheers. Do you own a high def LG TV? -- -- Thomas From lists at collab.nl Wed Oct 7 20:48:51 2009 From: lists at collab.nl (Thijs Triemstra | Collab) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 19:48:51 +0100 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> Message-ID: Ehm, providing the source upon request only is a violation isn't it? It should be available through a public http/ftp site right? Cheers, Thijs On 7 Oct 2009, at 02:53, Kim Kyoungae wrote: > Hello. > > My name is Kyoungae Kim and I am dealing with the open source > license compliance at LG electronics. > > We use open source code for some of our products and we mention that > on the manual. > Also we provide source code if it is requested via opensource at lge.com. > > For your information, we have already provided the source code to > thinkliberty who wrote concerns about LGE's OpenSource license > policy at digg.com > > Please feel free to contact opensource at lge.com if you have any > questions. > > Thanks > > Kyoungae Kim. > > On Oct 6, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Valent Turkovic wrote: > >> http://digg.com/linux_unix/GPL_violator_LG_refuses_to_release_their_linux_source_code >> >> I found the link and thought to bring it to your attention. Is >> anybody >> aware of LG not providing source code with their products that use >> Linux? >> >> Cheers! >> >> -- >> pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt >> http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ >> linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless >> registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org >> . >> ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, msn: >> valent.turkovic at hotmail.com >> > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 194 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20091007/cbd59c38/attachment.pgp From bkuhn at ebb.org Wed Oct 7 21:37:27 2009 From: bkuhn at ebb.org (Bradley M. Kuhn) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:37:27 -0400 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a80910070457l6fe2e348xd7fdaebcaa220cd2@mail.gmail.com> (Thomas Charron's message of "Wed, 7 Oct 2009 07:57:14 -0400") References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> <64b14b300910070005k7f6fb138j706e639503ce8f3f@mail.gmail.com> <30dfe2a80910070457l6fe2e348xd7fdaebcaa220cd2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <87skdvj8qw.fsf@ebb.org> [ Posted to only the legal@ mailing list, not emailed to lge.com, as I don't want to bother them as they hopefully already know what I'm explaining here. ] > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Valent Turkovic wrote: >> So where can we get the source for LG TV's? Please provide some >> public link. Thomas Charron wrote at 07:57 (EDT): > Do you own a high def LG TV? Thijs wrote on the same thread: >>> Ehm, providing the source upon request only is a violation isn't it? >>> It should be available through a public http/ftp site right? Thomas's and Thijs's questions hint at an oft-confused area of the GPLv2. The offer for source in GPLv2 3(b) applies to *any* third party, not just someone who has received physical distribution of the device/program. The Free Software community has generally interpreted this to mean that anyone who is in *possession* of the *offer* itself has a right to ask and receive the source. (In other words, if someone shows you the manual for the device, and the manual has the offer in it, then you have the right to request and receive source.) The consequence is that pretty much anyone can ask for the source code if they can represent legitimately merely to have knowledge of the offer for source that comes with the product. Note that GPLv3 changes this to be more favorable to the companies, who asked for a change so that they would not get so many requests from the general public. GPLv3 says instead that only someone "who possesses the object code" has a right to get the source code. So, to have the right to exercise an offer for source under GPLv3, you would have to get someone with a TV to distribute the OBJECT CODE to you. During the GPLv3 drafting process, we theorized that likely companies would start asking for SHA1 sums of the object code before they would honor requests for source. OTOH, since it's tough to put together a full software stack that doesn't include some GPLv2'd software alongside some GPLv3'd stuff, that point is probably moot, since the GPLv2 clearly will apply on at least some programs in the stack. Furthermore, since the two programs most likely involved in the LG product -- Linux and BusyBox -- are usually licensed under GPLv2, the GPLv3 point is purely of academic interest in this particular situation. Finally, and most importantly, the GPL definitely never requires someone to make all source code publicly, unless the binaries are publicly available. -- -- bkuhn From bkuhn at ebb.org Wed Oct 7 21:19:15 2009 From: bkuhn at ebb.org (Bradley M. Kuhn) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 15:19:15 -0400 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a80910060535t1e917667maed102dcfa310b3f@mail.gmail.com> (Thomas Charron's message of "Tue, 6 Oct 2009 08:35:26 -0400") References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> <30dfe2a80910060535t1e917667maed102dcfa310b3f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <87zl83ko5o.fsf@ebb.org> Thomas Charron wrote at 08:35 (EDT) on Tuesday: > Doesn't suprise me. Until the EFF can start suing people like mad > and making money at it, they can't chase after everyone. I think it's very unlikely that the EFF would ever get involved in GPL enforcement. It's really outside of their scope, as an organization. Is there a specific reason that you think they might be interested in doing GPL enforcement? -- -- bkuhn From armijn at uulug.nl Wed Oct 7 21:50:56 2009 From: armijn at uulug.nl (Armijn Hemel) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 21:50:56 +0200 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> Message-ID: <1254945056.2401.80.camel@cletus.thuis> On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 19:48 +0100, Thijs Triemstra | Collab wrote: > Ehm, providing the source upon request only is a violation isn't it? Nope. Please see GPLv2 section 3b. > It should be available through a public http/ftp site right? Nope. armijn -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- armijn at uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From dam at baltic-online.de Wed Oct 7 21:41:21 2009 From: dam at baltic-online.de (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 21:41:21 +0200 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> Message-ID: Hi, Am 07.10.2009 um 20:48 schrieb Thijs Triemstra | Collab: > Ehm, providing the source upon request only is a violation isn't it? > It should be available through a public http/ftp site right? It is even more strict: they have to provide the source only to customers who actually bought the product and it is perfectly ok if they do this on request as they do now per mail. IANAL -- Dago From armijn at uulug.nl Wed Oct 7 22:47:51 2009 From: armijn at uulug.nl (Armijn Hemel) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:47:51 +0200 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> Message-ID: <1254948471.2401.81.camel@cletus.thuis> On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 21:41 +0200, Dagobert Michelsen wrote: > Hi, > > Am 07.10.2009 um 20:48 schrieb Thijs Triemstra | Collab: > > Ehm, providing the source upon request only is a violation isn't it? > > It should be available through a public http/ftp site right? > > It is even more strict: they have to provide the source only to > customers who actually bought the product and it is perfectly > ok if they do this on request as they do now per mail. Nope. If they provide a written offer (as they do now) they have to provide it to "any third party". armijn -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- armijn at uulug.nl | http://www.uulug.nl/ | UULug: Utrecht Linux Users Group ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From ismael.luceno at gmail.com Wed Oct 7 22:38:41 2009 From: ismael.luceno at gmail.com (Ismael Luceno) Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:38:41 -0200 Subject: Fw: Potential GPL Violation Message-ID: <4ACCFC51.8090509@gmail.com> I found a project that appears to use various GPL components. I saw some interesting strings on the binaries, but they explain it in their own site (and on a file): http://www.kmplayer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141 It does include a verbatim copies of the GPL and LGPL, but there's no way to obtain the source code, and I got no response from it's authors. This is a big issue. There's an article talking about this in the site, but it's in korean so I can't read it... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20091007/ae125ff9/attachment.pgp From twaffle at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 00:04:05 2009 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:04:05 -0400 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: <87skdvj8qw.fsf@ebb.org> References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> <64b14b300910070005k7f6fb138j706e639503ce8f3f@mail.gmail.com> <30dfe2a80910070457l6fe2e348xd7fdaebcaa220cd2@mail.gmail.com> <87skdvj8qw.fsf@ebb.org> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80910071504y5a6716aft732100d24495b85a@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Valent Turkovic wrote: >>> So where can we get the source for LG TV's? Please provide some >>> public link. > Thomas Charron wrote at 07:57 (EDT): >> ? Do you own a high def LG TV? > Thijs wrote on the same thread: >>>> Ehm, providing the source upon request only is a violation isn't it? >>>> It should be available through a public http/ftp site right? > Thomas's and Thijs's questions hint at an oft-confused area of the GPLv2. > The offer for source in GPLv2 3(b) applies to *any* third party, not just > someone who has received physical distribution of the device/program. You know, I never noticed that wording of 'Any' 3rd party. Kinda funny that it's only present in section B, but not A or C. > Finally, and most importantly, the GPL definitely never requires someone > to make all source code publicly, unless the binaries are publicly available. Which, in the case of being physically present within a television, they are. :-D -- -- Thomas From valent.turkovic at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 00:12:57 2009 From: valent.turkovic at gmail.com (Valent Turkovic) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 00:12:57 +0200 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a80910070457l6fe2e348xd7fdaebcaa220cd2@mail.gmail.com> References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> <64b14b300910070005k7f6fb138j706e639503ce8f3f@mail.gmail.com> <30dfe2a80910070457l6fe2e348xd7fdaebcaa220cd2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <64b14b300910071512p7da16ddfl4135a011ca50d2ac@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Thomas Charron wrote: > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Valent Turkovic > wrote: >> So where can we get the source for LG TV's? Please provide some public link. >> Cheers. > > ?Do you own a high def LG TV? > > -- > -- Thomas > Yes. Please provide source code for LH5000 model. Thank you, Valent. -- pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentt http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/ linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org. ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic, msn: valent.turkovic at hotmail.com From allan.hardy at lmco.com Thu Oct 8 16:32:37 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:32:37 -0400 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> Message-ID: <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE4470552CDFD@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> As I understand things that last email was incorrect about only to customer that bought, this is my understanding: As a FOSS provider/distributor you have two choices: 1- provide source at the same time as binaries/executables Do this and there is no requirement to provide source to anyone else. Ever (ex: redhat linux) 2- maker an offer for source Offers can be call me, send an email, go to my website Offers must be available for 3 years (and the same version) In v2 offers are basically 'redeemable' by anyone that asks, the public In v3, as someone already mentioned, there is an attempt to make people show proof of ownership/purchase so to speak. Of having the binaries. Lastly, the obligation to provide source, for the same version your using, for 3 years, is yours, you cannot fulfill it by pointing to the original project, or some other public distribution (ex: source forge) Simply because you have no control over the 3rd party source, if it stays up, keeps your version available etc. At least that's my understanding :) IANAL Allan -----Original Message----- From: legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org [mailto:legal-bounces at lists.gpl-violations.org] On Behalf Of Dagobert Michelsen Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 3:41 PM To: Thijs Triemstra | Collab Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: LG violates GPL? Hi, Am 07.10.2009 um 20:48 schrieb Thijs Triemstra | Collab: > Ehm, providing the source upon request only is a violation isn't it? > It should be available through a public http/ftp site right? It is even more strict: they have to provide the source only to customers who actually bought the product and it is perfectly ok if they do this on request as they do now per mail. IANAL -- Dago From allan.hardy at lmco.com Thu Oct 8 16:49:40 2009 From: allan.hardy at lmco.com (Hardy, Allan) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:49:40 -0400 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a80910080744u7963fd67we09ed80debe13d1b@mail.gmail.com> References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE4470552CDFD@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> <30dfe2a80910080744u7963fd67we09ed80debe13d1b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE4470552CED1@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> Thanks, Working for a commercial company we tend to take the view that people will view anything we do as commercial in nature. So I always forget the 3rd option. We always 'ship source with binaries' to keep us out of trouble The biggest issue for us is getting our suppliers to disclose the FOSS and second to get them to be compliant in making source available. I have lots of conversations with suppliers that simply don't know, or have a different view of the rules. Allan -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Charron [mailto:twaffle at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 10:45 AM To: Hardy, Allan Cc: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: LG violates GPL? On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Hardy, Allan wrote: > As I understand things that last email was incorrect about only to customer that bought, this is my understanding: > As a FOSS provider/distributor you have two choices: > 1- provide source at the same time as binaries/executables > Do this and there is no requirement to provide source to anyone else. > Ever ?(ex: redhat linux) Yup. > 2- maker an offer for source > Offers can be call me, send an email, go to my website > Offers must be available for 3 years (and the same version) > In v2 offers are basically 'redeemable' by anyone that asks, the public > In v3, as someone already mentioned, there is an attempt to make people show proof of ownership/purchase so to speak. Of having the binaries. > Lastly, the obligation to provide source, for the same version your using, for 3 years, is yours, you cannot fulfill it by pointing to the original project, or some other public distribution (ex: source forge) > Simply because you have no control over the 3rd party source, if it stays up, keeps your version available etc. > At least that's my understanding :) Actually, at least in GPLv2, there is a third option, only applicable to non-commercial redistribution: c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) Not, options a,b, and c all say 'or'. Now there could be a case (IANAL) where one could argue the GPLed components which you're distributing aren't a commercial distribution of the source, as it is simply an acompanying 'addition'. But there is a whole lot of 'I guess they could say that' in that statement. :-D -- -- Thomas From twaffle at gmail.com Thu Oct 8 16:44:58 2009 From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 10:44:58 -0400 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE4470552CDFD@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE4470552CDFD@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> Message-ID: <30dfe2a80910080744u7963fd67we09ed80debe13d1b@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Hardy, Allan wrote: > As I understand things that last email was incorrect about only to customer that bought, this is my understanding: > As a FOSS provider/distributor you have two choices: > 1- provide source at the same time as binaries/executables > Do this and there is no requirement to provide source to anyone else. > Ever ?(ex: redhat linux) Yup. > 2- maker an offer for source > Offers can be call me, send an email, go to my website > Offers must be available for 3 years (and the same version) > In v2 offers are basically 'redeemable' by anyone that asks, the public > In v3, as someone already mentioned, there is an attempt to make people show proof of ownership/purchase so to speak. Of having the binaries. > Lastly, the obligation to provide source, for the same version your using, for 3 years, is yours, you cannot fulfill it by pointing to the original project, or some other public distribution (ex: source forge) > Simply because you have no control over the 3rd party source, if it stays up, keeps your version available etc. > At least that's my understanding :) Actually, at least in GPLv2, there is a third option, only applicable to non-commercial redistribution: c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) Not, options a,b, and c all say 'or'. Now there could be a case (IANAL) where one could argue the GPLed components which you're distributing aren't a commercial distribution of the source, as it is simply an acompanying 'addition'. But there is a whole lot of 'I guess they could say that' in that statement. :-D -- -- Thomas From arnt at c2i.net Thu Oct 8 16:18:43 2009 From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 16:18:43 +0200 Subject: Potential GPL Violation In-Reply-To: <4ACCFC51.8090509@gmail.com> References: <4ACCFC51.8090509@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20091008161843.2b33fafb@a45.fmb.no> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:38:41 -0200, Ismael wrote in message <4ACCFC51.8090509 at gmail.com>: > I found a project that appears to use various GPL components. I saw > some interesting strings on the binaries, but they explain it in > their own site (and on a file): > > http://www.kmplayer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141 > > It does include a verbatim copies of the GPL and LGPL, but there's no > way to obtain the source code, and I got no response from it's > authors. > > This is a big issue. There's an article talking about this in the > site, but it's in korean so I can't read it... > ..try: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.kmplayer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2&sl=ko&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. From bkuhn at ebb.org Fri Oct 9 14:59:03 2009 From: bkuhn at ebb.org (Bradley M. Kuhn) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 08:59:03 -0400 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE4470552CED1@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> (Allan Hardy's message of "Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:49:40 -0400") References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE4470552CDFD@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> <30dfe2a80910080744u7963fd67we09ed80debe13d1b@mail.gmail.com> <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE4470552CED1@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> Message-ID: <87zl80bu5k.fsf@ebb.org> Allan Hardy wrote at 10:49 (EDT) on Thursday: > We always 'ship source with binaries' to keep us out of trouble It's so good to read that, and I wish more commercial companies were as enlightened as yours on this point. Commercial companies are generally obsessed with doing offers for source. The main reason I believe they do this as they think it will somehow be better for them, and they won't actually have to prepare a source release because they actually believe no one will ever ask. As people on this mailing list know, one of "us" :) will always ask for it, and then they have to come into compliance. The three year obligation to produce media and ship it to people is a real pain for companies, but until they have been through it they just won't believe the GPL enforcement community when we tell them that. I've been telling violating companies that very point since 1999 when I started doing GPL enforcement, ten years later, they *still* always want to do the offer for source anyway. -- -- bkuhn From johannesstorm at gmx.de Fri Oct 9 16:38:04 2009 From: johannesstorm at gmx.de (Johannes Storm) Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:38:04 +0200 Subject: Possible GPL-Violation by Freecom Technology Message-ID: <4ACF4ACC.2070302@gmx.de> Hi, i am new here, so i don't know if this is the right list :-D a few days ago i send this message to license-violation at gpl-violations.org, but i had not seen your mailing-lists. so here again: *********************************************************** Hi, i am Johannes Storm and this is a letter about a possible GPL-violation by Freecom Technology GmbH. I have to wrote the letter because Freecom don't publish the code of the current firmware versions for some of their products. This firmware runs on Freecom Storage Gateway (FSG3), Datatank (DT2) and Network Drive Pro (VT4) and consists almost entirely of free software. The first version with unpublished code is 4.4.2 from Febuary 13th 2008. There are alot requests to Freecom about the code by email, phone and in the official forum: - http://www.freecomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9710 - http://www.freecomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16569 - http://www.openfsg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=7618 and not least, this letter. The support of Freecom always say that they forward the requests and the code will be published soon, but nothing happens since over a year. We also know from Freecom support that there is no active development anymore on this firmware. But because there is a active community, which develop and support themselves, it is necessary to get the newest code for futher working on a Community Release (http://www.openfsg.com/index.php/FSG-3_Community_Release). This letter is to ask Freecom to publish the code and continue to do so promptly in all subsequent versions too. Futhermore i call on the copyright holders of the affected software to enforce their rights. Thank you very much Johannes Storm The following list shows parts of the inluded OpenSource Software and some infomations: - gpl-violation.txt This open letter will be published to Freecom, Free Software Foundation and the copyright holders or maintainers of the included open source software: supportde at freecom.com license-violation at gnu.org linux at sentec-elektronik.de list at apache.org buytenh at gnu.org busybox at busybox.net gerg at snapgear.com yoichi at fore.com simon at thekelleys.org.uk dave at humbug.demon.co.uk fetchmail-devel at lists.berlios.de miklos at szeredi.hu gerg at moreton.com.au coreteam at netfilter.org neilb at suse.de kobras at linux.de szaka at ntfs-3g.org ken_yap at users.sourceforge.net tobias at ratschiller.com paulus at samba.org cananian at alumni.princeton.edu derrell at samba.org wessels at squid-cache.org chris at scary.beasts.org jt at hpl.hp.com info at linuxnewmedia.de redaktion at linux-community.de ********************************************** I also have this letter sent via post to freecom. Until now the only replys are: From ntfs-3g: -------- Hi Johannes, Thank you for the information. I'll forward it to our lawyer. Unfortunately this is not the first and I'm afraid not the last case. Please send all further related emails to my email address only. Thank you again. Best regards, Szaka -------- and netfilter: -------- Hi Johannes, iptables (C) 2000-2002 by the netfilter coreteam This is a quite old version in which I probably don't own enough copyrights to consider enforcing them. Could you provide me with the kernel version used in the products in question? Thanks. .... They're actually quite slow and bad at enforcing I'm told. I'd suggest you contact gpl-violations.org, Harald has been transfered the copyrights to mtd and a few other parts which are commonly used in these devices. ------- I realy don't know why Freecom don't publish the sources, because they have done it at the old versions and there are realy no great changes (changelog). Sorry for so much text, but on FSF page i read they like to know details. Many thanks for all your great work that you have already done for opensource community. by johannes -- Ich unterst?tze signierten und verschl?sselten Emailverkehr via S/MIME (X.509 Class I) und PGP (OpenPGP). -- Ende Signatur: Johannes Storm -------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: gpl-violation.txt Url: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20091009/cbd1e052/attachment.txt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4703 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20091009/cbd1e052/attachment.bin From cdibona at gmail.com Fri Oct 9 19:07:24 2009 From: cdibona at gmail.com (Chris DiBona) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:07:24 -0700 Subject: LG violates GPL? In-Reply-To: <87zl80bu5k.fsf@ebb.org> References: <64b14b300910060359u6352301evb9dead84a14c6aa6@mail.gmail.com> <321247EB-6B03-4CA0-A38D-E1C0B53B7919@lge.com> <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE4470552CDFD@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> <30dfe2a80910080744u7963fd67we09ed80debe13d1b@mail.gmail.com> <369F44838B07C34DA00950C9B075AFE4470552CED1@HVXMSP1.us.lmco.com> <87zl80bu5k.fsf@ebb.org> Message-ID: <7d9492d90910091007o21f21526qaa0c92e887e92287@mail.gmail.com> I prefer mirroring simply because it keeps the online complaining down, but even then, I've had people complain first and then look for the mirror after the fact. The actual number of people who actually care about the code itself can be quite small. chris On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > Allan Hardy wrote at 10:49 (EDT) on Thursday: > > > We always 'ship source with binaries' to keep us out of trouble > > It's so good to read that, and I wish more commercial companies were as > enlightened as yours on this point. > > Commercial companies are generally obsessed with doing offers for > source. The main reason I believe they do this as they think it will > somehow be better for them, and they won't actually have to prepare a > source release because they actually believe no one will ever ask. > > As people on this mailing list know, one of "us" :) will always ask for > it, and then they have to come into compliance. > > The three year obligation to produce media and ship it to people is a > real pain for companies, but until they have been through it they just > won't believe the GPL enforcement community when we tell them that. > > I've been telling violating companies that very point since 1999 when I > started doing GPL enforcement, ten years later, they *still* always want > to do the offer for source anyway. > > -- > > -- bkuhn > > -- Open Source Programs Manager, Google Inc. Google's Open Source program can be found at http://code.google.com Personal Weblog: http://dibona.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20091009/eea0aab4/attachment.htm