LG violates GPL?

[Hardy, Allan]

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