LG violates GPL?

[Thomas Charron]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Hardy, Allan <allan.hardy at lmco.com> 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