LG violates GPL?

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

[ 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