From andre.em.caldas at gmail.com  Tue Feb  9 12:02:44 2010
From: andre.em.caldas at gmail.com (Andre Caldas)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:02:44 -0200
Subject: D-Link in Brazil.
Message-ID: <70bcf3db1002090302p354c6df3g594626bd9c72d07@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I live in Brazil.
I was not going to report this because it seems to me (based on
preview violation reports made by me) that the gpl-violations.org is
not interested in violations in Brazil...

However, I've learned that the gpl-violations.org already has some
litigation history agains D-Link. So I decided to report.

I bought a DSL-500B and it came with no mention whatsoever about the
software included in the firmware (BusyBox, at least), no mention
about the GPL, no CD or DVD.

I have reported this to the Dlink Brazil at the e-mail
suporte at dlink.com.br. They have answered me that the factory has not
provided them with such information and therefore nothing is mentioned
on the instructions manual or written in the box. The messages (in
Portuguese) are attached.


Andr? Caldas.
-------------- next part --------------
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.150.70 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Feb 2010 03:25:06 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 09:25:06 -0200
Delivered-To: andre.em.caldas at gmail.com
Message-ID: <70bcf3db1002070325sf62fcd0i27b0e82c8e7cf81c at mail.gmail.com>
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?VmlvbGHDp8OjbyBkYSBHUEwgRC1MaW5rIERTTC01MDBCLg==?=
From: Andre Caldas <andre.em.caldas at gmail.com>
To: suporte at dlinkbrasil.com.br
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ol=C3=A1!

Meu nome =C3=A9 Andr=C3=A9 Caldas. Eu adquiri um DSL-500B.

O log do sistema me informa que ele roda o BusyBox. A Wikipedia me diz o me=
smo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#Appliances

No entanto, n=C3=A3o consegui encontrar nenhuma refer=C3=AAncia =C3=A0 GPL =
ou ao
c=C3=B3digo-fonte do produto. Isso constitui uma viola=C3=A7=C3=A3o aos ter=
mos da
licen=C3=A7a do software BusyBox que =C3=A9 licenciado sob a GPL. Gostaria =
de
uma explica=C3=A7=C3=A3o. Em breve estarei informando =C3=A0s partes intere=
ssadas
para que possam tomar as devidas provid=C3=AAncias legais.

N=C3=A3o investiguei a respeito, mas acredito que o software inclu=C3=ADdo =
no
firmware do produto tamb=C3=A9m inclui o Kernel Linux, que tamb=C3=A9m =C3=
=A9
licenciado pela GPL. Nenhuma men=C3=A7=C3=A3o a isso =C3=A9 feita em nenhum=
 documento
que acompanha o produto. O c=C3=B3digo fonte tamb=C3=A9m n=C3=A3o est=C3=A1=
 dispon=C3=ADvel e
nenhuma oferta por escrito acompanha o produto.


Grato,
Andr=C3=A9 Caldas.
--=20
- Por que altera a ordem natural da conversa=C3=A7=C3=A3o!
- Por que n=C3=A3o?
- Eu n=C3=A3o gosto, n=C3=A3o.
- Voc=C3=AA gosta quando copiam a mensagem original ao final do e-mail?
-------------- next part --------------
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
Delivered-To: andre.em.caldas at gmail.com
Received: by 10.231.150.70 with SMTP id x6cs32072ibv;
        Mon, 8 Feb 2010 06:26:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.91.50.9 with SMTP id c9mr5597007agk.116.1265639209263;
        Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:26:49 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <suporte at dlink.com.br>
Received: from dlinkbrmail.dlinkbr.com.br (189-039-048-245.static.spo.ctbc.com.br [189.39.48.245])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 7si10925261gxk.73.2010.02.08.06.26.48;
        Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:26:49 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 189.39.48.245 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of suporte at dlink.com.br) client-ip=189.39.48.245;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 189.39.48.245 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of suporte at dlink.com.br) smtp.mail=suporte at dlink.com.br
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_Viola=E7=E3o_da_GPL_D-Link_DSL-500B=2E?=
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:26:45 -0200
Message-ID: <0B746CE03AC79849AE7AC84B744167215438BF at dlinkbrmail.dlinkbr.com.br>
In-Reply-To: <70bcf3db1002070325sf62fcd0i27b0e82c8e7cf81c at mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Viola=E7=E3o_da_GPL_D-Link_DSL-500B=2E?=
Thread-Index: Acqn6ECrebUKxnRmRw+34HwHGM2CLwA4kecw
References: <70bcf3db1002070325sf62fcd0i27b0e82c8e7cf81c at mail.gmail.com>
From: "Suporte - D-Link Brasil" <suporte at dlink.com.br>
To: "Andre Caldas" <andre.em.caldas at gmail.com>

Prezado Sr. Andr=E9,

Lamentamos, por=E9m a fabrica n=E3o disponibilizou essas informa=E7=F5es =
e as mesmas n=E3o se encontram no manual e caixa do equipamento.=20

Colocamo-nos =E0 disposi=E7=E3o para quaisquer esclarecimentos.
Atenciosamente,
Suporte T=E9cnico       =20
E-mail=20
D-Link Brasil =20
Tel: 55 11 2755-6950  =20
Tel: 4062-1850=20
      =20
-------------------------------- Declara=E7=E3o de Confidencialidade de =
E-mail na Internet --------------------------     =20
As informa=E7=F5es contidas nesta mensagem destinam-se exclusivamente as =
pessoas e/ou institui=E7=F5es acima indicadas e pode conter =
informa=E7=F5es particulares e confidenciais. Se voc=EA n=E3o =E9 o =
destinat=E1rio pretendido, funcion=E1rio ou pessoa respons=E1vel pela =
entrega desta mensagem ao destinat=E1rio pretendido, qualquer =
divulga=E7=E3o, distribui=E7=E3o ou c=F3pia desta comunica=E7=E3o =E9 =
estritamente proibida. Se voc=EA recebeu esta mensagem por engano, por =
favor, destrua a mensagem e informe o remetente imediatamente =
respondendo o e-mail. Agradecemos sua colabora=E7=E3o.=20
      =20
--------------------------------------- Internet e-mail Confidentiality =
Statement ---------------------------------   =20
The Information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for =
the use of the individual to whom it is addressed and is private and =
confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or =
agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, =
any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is =
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please =
destroy it and notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail. Thank you =
for your cooperation.  PK
---------------------------------------- D-Link - Building Networks for =
People ------------------------------------   =20
=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Caldas [mailto:andre.em.caldas at gmail.com]=20
Sent: domingo, 7 de fevereiro de 2010 09:25
To: Suporte - D-Link Brasil
Subject: Viola=E7=E3o da GPL D-Link DSL-500B.

Ol=E1!

Meu nome =E9 Andr=E9 Caldas. Eu adquiri um DSL-500B.

O log do sistema me informa que ele roda o BusyBox. A Wikipedia me diz o =
mesmo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#Appliances

No entanto, n=E3o consegui encontrar nenhuma refer=EAncia =E0 GPL ou ao
c=F3digo-fonte do produto. Isso constitui uma viola=E7=E3o aos termos da
licen=E7a do software BusyBox que =E9 licenciado sob a GPL. Gostaria de
uma explica=E7=E3o. Em breve estarei informando =E0s partes interessadas
para que possam tomar as devidas provid=EAncias legais.

N=E3o investiguei a respeito, mas acredito que o software inclu=EDdo no
firmware do produto tamb=E9m inclui o Kernel Linux, que tamb=E9m =E9
licenciado pela GPL. Nenhuma men=E7=E3o a isso =E9 feita em nenhum =
documento
que acompanha o produto. O c=F3digo fonte tamb=E9m n=E3o est=E1 =
dispon=EDvel e
nenhuma oferta por escrito acompanha o produto.


Grato,
Andr=E9 Caldas.
--=20
- Por que altera a ordem natural da conversa=E7=E3o!
- Por que n=E3o?
- Eu n=E3o gosto, n=E3o.
- Voc=EA gosta quando copiam a mensagem original ao final do e-mail?

From luca at ventoso.org  Wed Feb 10 09:10:02 2010
From: luca at ventoso.org (Luca Olivetti)
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:10:02 +0100
Subject: LG violates gpl? take 2
In-Reply-To: <4B5DEB1E.8080008@ventoso.org>
References: <4B4389C1.2040408@ventoso.org>	<C662FC65-BF21-496F-9FA3-B4A1617DEB45@lge.com>
	<4B448076.2080208@ventoso.org> <4B478713.20806@ventoso.org>
	<FEDE608A-7558-4B69-8BB0-FCA8939F21F3@lge.com>
	<4B4C92FF.2080001@ventoso.org>
	<73D4AE4C-E1B4-4E60-B445-F104D137FD4B@lge.com>
	<4B5DEB1E.8080008@ventoso.org>
Message-ID: <4B7269DA.7020402@ventoso.org>

En/na Luca Olivetti ha escrit:
> En/na Kyoungae Kim ha escrit:
> 
>> The source code I gave you is the last version. If you want to get the 
>> 3.20 version, we can do it.
>>>>> 3) No tool is provided to create an installable firmware image. I 
>>>>> know that the firmware contains non-gpl parts, but those can be 
>>>>> provided in binary form.
>>>> Sorry but I do not understand what kind of tool. You already built 
>>>> kernel image, uImage. And uImage is executable image that can be 
>>>> executed on TV.
>>>
>>> Yes, but how do I install it on the TV?
>>> The tv only accepts an epk file as a firmware upgrade and there's no 
>>> tool to prepare an epk file.
>>
>> I'm trying to ask the relevant department. Please understand that 
>> reply will be late because of my business trip. ( ~ Jan. 24 ) 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> if you're back from your business trip, I'm still waiting for a solution 
>  to these issues:
> 
> 1) I need the sources corresponding to my kernel or a firmware update. 
> Either way I need them to be in sync.
> 
> 2) A way to build an image to upload to the tv
> 
> An additional item is that if RELEASE is statically linked to uClibc, 
> according to the LGPL you should also provide an object that can be 
> linked to uClibc.
> 
> In the end I should be able to build the same kernel as supplied on the 
> tv and the same RELEASE by linking it to the provided uClibc.


I'm still waiting......

Bye
-- 
Luca


From andre.em.caldas at gmail.com  Wed Feb 10 18:56:24 2010
From: andre.em.caldas at gmail.com (Andre Caldas)
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:56:24 -0200
Subject: D-Link in Brazil.
In-Reply-To: <1265747004.31800.25.camel@localhost>
References: <70bcf3db1002090302p354c6df3g594626bd9c72d07@mail.gmail.com> 
	<1265747004.31800.25.camel@localhost>
Message-ID: <70bcf3db1002100956g48c46aa5p98d62b16b376e917@mail.gmail.com>

> Never dealt with D-Link but a quick google gave the following:
>
> http://tsd.dlink.com.tw/gpl2008.asp
>
> There you find all dlink published GPL sources for all products, and
> contact information on who to contact if some product is missing.

This is not enough. They have to distribute the source along with the
binaries or provide a written offer. They also need to inform you that
the software is under the GPL. For that reason I mentioned explicitly
that nothing ever mentioned anywhere.

According to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl-violations#D-Link
gpl-violations.org already has won against D-Link in Germany. But it
seems it was not enough to prevent them from violating the license
here in Brazil.


> But your local support contact should know this better.

I found their answer quite interesting. They were worried about what
they thought it was "their" mistake: not providing the information.
They were not worried about the "international" D-Link being violating
anything.


Andr? Caldas.
PS: You did not reply to the list. :-)


From henrik at henriknordstrom.net  Wed Feb 10 22:04:44 2010
From: henrik at henriknordstrom.net (Henrik =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Nordstr=F6m?=)
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:04:44 +0100
Subject: D-Link in Brazil.
In-Reply-To: <70bcf3db1002100956g48c46aa5p98d62b16b376e917@mail.gmail.com>
References: <70bcf3db1002090302p354c6df3g594626bd9c72d07@mail.gmail.com>
	<1265747004.31800.25.camel@localhost>
	<70bcf3db1002100956g48c46aa5p98d62b16b376e917@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1265835884.32454.37.camel@localhost.localdomain>

ons 2010-02-10 klockan 15:56 -0200 skrev Andre Caldas:

> > But your local support contact should know this better.
> 
> I found their answer quite interesting. They were worried about what
> they thought it was "their" mistake: not providing the information.
> They were not worried about the "international" D-Link being violating
> anything.

Well, to you it's D-Link in Brazil that is the failing part as it is
them who distributed the violating product to you, and it's also D-Link
Brazil that is ultimately responsible for any support questions
regarding the product sold to you including access to GPL sources. It is
impossible for us to tell exactly what relations D-Link international
and D-Link Brazil has regarding this specific product but that's an
internal arrangement within D-Link and not really of our concern.

If there is a GPL violation then I am pretty sure that it's an
unintentional violation. D-Link markets very many products in many
areas, some of which isn't even built by D-Link to begin with. Worth
mentioning is also that the product in question only seems to available
in some markets, not worldwide, which further increases the risk for
error..

Now, to try to return this discussion into something productive..

How long since you asked D-Link about the matter?

Has D-Link Brazil refused your request?

Has there been unreasonably long time for them to correct the error?

Have you tried contacting the address I gave you? If so what was their
response? If not, why?

Regards
Henrik



From andre.em.caldas at gmail.com  Thu Feb 11 13:45:26 2010
From: andre.em.caldas at gmail.com (Andre Caldas)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:45:26 -0200
Subject: D-Link in Brazil.
In-Reply-To: <1265835884.32454.37.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <70bcf3db1002090302p354c6df3g594626bd9c72d07@mail.gmail.com> 
	<1265747004.31800.25.camel@localhost>
	<70bcf3db1002100956g48c46aa5p98d62b16b376e917@mail.gmail.com> 
	<1265835884.32454.37.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <70bcf3db1002110445o452bdc26r342f1c3c126dcd95@mail.gmail.com>

Hi!

>> I found their answer quite interesting. They were worried about what
>> they thought it was "their" mistake: not providing the information.
>> They were not worried about the "international" D-Link being violating
>> anything.
>
> Well, to you it's D-Link in Brazil that is the failing part as it is
> them who distributed the violating product to you,

I was just making a comment about their answer. I found interesting
that their reply was something like: "well, it is not our fault, it
was the manufacturer's fault."

But anyway, let me explain to you how the GPL works:
* If you distribute without following the license then you are
violating THE AUTHOR's copyright.

This list is not a channel to complain about my relationship to the
seller or their internal organization as a multinational company. In
any case there is at least one violation and that is what this list is
about. I will not go further with useless speculations about their
internal organization as you are doing because it would take us
nowhere.

Facts:
* D-Link in German has a history of some "resolved" violation. I guess
(it is a guess!!) that they have made promises to warrant compliance.
Well, if that is the case it seems to me they are not working hard
enough.
* D-Link in Brazil distributes the BusyBox without full filling the
license requirements.
* D-Link in Brazil seems/claims to have no knowledge of the problem.


> and it's also D-Link
> Brazil that is ultimately responsible for any support questions
> regarding the product sold to you including access to GPL sources.

I don't care! ;-)
I am not complaining about their support or lack of it!!


> It is
> impossible for us to tell exactly what relations D-Link international
> and D-Link Brazil has regarding this specific product but that's an
> internal arrangement within D-Link and not really of our concern.

Thanks for making my point. Any internal arrangements they might have
is not of our concern. What is of my concern is that they sell a
product internationally and violate the BusyBox copyright by doing so
the way they do in Brazil.


> If there is a GPL violation then I am pretty sure that it's an
> unintentional violation.

Me too.
Well... if it was not the fact that it has lost a case in German. It
is possible that there is no intentional violation by the D-Link here
in Brazil. But I would guess there is intentional omission somewhere.


> D-Link markets very many products in many
> areas, some of which isn't even built by D-Link to begin with.

And? So what!? Then they automatically do not need to respect copyright?


> Worth
> mentioning is also that the product in question only seems to available
> in some markets, not worldwide, which further increases the risk for
> error..

That should be fixed. If they made a mistake, they should take actions
in order to fix it. Probably they just need a copyright owner to
contact them. Since the German counterpart has violation history, I
guess Harald Welte already has a "direct line" that could be used to
speed up/simplify the process.


> Now, to try to return this discussion into something productive..

Would you mind not being a (put your preferred offense here)?


> How long since you asked D-Link about the matter?

About 4 days.


> Has D-Link Brazil refused your request?

They said they don't have the information because the manufacturer did
not tell them anything.


> Has there been unreasonably long time for them to correct the error?

No.
Correcting the error means at least:
* Distributing a copy of the license ALONG the product.
* Distributing the SOURCE CODE or a WRITTEN OFFER ALONG the product.

I don't think they will do it if I ask. Especially because I do not
have the proper right to demand them to do so. I do not own any
copyright.

I do not need the source code. I need companies to respect the
license. I want the right... doesn't mean that I want to use the right
this time.

I do not care about the busybox in special. I care about
free-software. I want it to be free.


> Have you tried contacting the address I gave you? If so what was their
> response? If not, why?

I have already mentioned that I did contact them using the e-mail
address they have provided.

The address provided on the link you mentioned is for requesting the
source code. I do not want the source code.


Andr? Caldas.


From neil at neilzone.co.uk  Thu Feb 11 17:50:43 2010
From: neil at neilzone.co.uk (Neil Brown)
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:50:43 +0000
Subject: D-Link in Brazil.
In-Reply-To: <70bcf3db1002110445o452bdc26r342f1c3c126dcd95@mail.gmail.com>
References: <70bcf3db1002090302p354c6df3g594626bd9c72d07@mail.gmail.com>
	<1265747004.31800.25.camel@localhost>	<70bcf3db1002100956g48c46aa5p98d62b16b376e917@mail.gmail.com>
	<1265835884.32454.37.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<70bcf3db1002110445o452bdc26r342f1c3c126dcd95@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4B743563.8070604@neilzone.co.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andre Caldas wrote:

Just my thoughts on the discussion, and some of the issues raised -
apologies if it's a dull monologue of my thoughts on copyright.

> But anyway, let me explain to you how the GPL works:
> * If you distribute without following the license then you are
> violating THE AUTHOR's copyright.

Just a word of caution, since this is not always the case- it is only
true where the act of distribution amounts to an act restricted by
copyright.

For example, under English law, distribution of a copyright work,
otherwise than electronic distribution, is not an act restricted by
copyright; one might be making copies to distribute, which is a
restricted act, but not actually distribution copies which have been
made by a third party. (Electronic distribution is likely to amount to
"communication to the public", which is an act restricted by copyright.)

If the distribution is not an act restricted by copyright, then, one
does not require a licence, and so the terms of GNU GPL, or, indeed, any
other licence, are not relevant to the distribution.

(One might be liable for a secondary infringement, possessing or dealing
with an infringing copy, if the copy supplied to you was infringing,
but, as long as your supplier has satisfied the terms of the licence, in
respect of its creation of the products, and their distribution to you,
there should be no problem. For example, if you engage a third party to
build a certain product for you, including in its codebase open source
components, and ships you a number of units containing that code for you
to sell (a typical OEM relationship), then, as long as that third party
has complied with all licence terms (including supplying you the source
/ making an offer etc., in accordance with GNU GPL), your onwards sale
of the units requires no licence.)


> Thanks for making my point. Any internal arrangements they might have
> is not of our concern. 

I agree with your point here. If D-Link Brazil is infringing, then, as
you say, it is D-Link Brazil to which you should address your requests,
as you have done. If D-Link Brazil has acquired the products from a
parent company, or is selling a "group" product etc., then, that is an
internal issue, entirely outside your scope of concern.

However, in reality, D-Link Brazil may have absolutely no knowledge of
what code is in the product, and is just selling a product which its
parent is offering it to sell, and so it might need to go back to its
parent to get hold of source code etc., but, that does not excuse it of
its compliance obligations, if it has any - it's just that this might
take time, and require escalation of the issue to a sufficiently senior
level to actually get this to happen.


>> D-Link markets very many products in many
>> areas, some of which isn't even built by D-Link to begin with.
> 
> And? So what!? Then they automatically do not need to respect copyright?

Just noting my comments above, that redistributing a product
manufactured by a third party, and supplied to you, might not fall
within the remit of copyright law - this does not mean that one need not
respect copyright law, but rather the law of copyright might not apply,
and thus not require either consideration or respect.


>> Has D-Link Brazil refused your request?
> 
> They said they don't have the information because the manufacturer did
> not tell them anything.


Whilst this is an entirely unsatisfactory answer, from the point of view
of someone who may well be entitled to the source code, this really is a
commercial reality in some cases (speaking from experience, although in
my purely personal capacity) - one can ask if a product contains open
source code, can seek warranties and indemnities in respect of its
inclusion etc., but, if the product does contain such code, and you are
not informed, the first you may know about it is when a customer
contacts you. You can then look to go back to your supplier, but, they,
in turn, may need to go back up the chain etc. - this can take a
considerable period of time to even find the right party to handle the
resolution, let alone actually extract the code, especially when the
only leverage you have is the threat of an action for breach of
contract, vis a vis your supplier. (And, of course, if your supplier
does not have the source code, a mandatory injunction (forcing release
of source code) is of no value, and so should not be issued). The only
real step is to remove the product from the market, but, this would not
remedy the past infringement - that relating to the units of that
product which have already been sold.

I'm not making excuses - if there is an infringement, then, there is an
infringement, irrespective of what's happened upstream - but, perhaps an
insight into the "other side" of things!

> I don't think they will do it if I ask. Especially because I do not
> have the proper right to demand them to do so. I do not own any
> copyright.

I think this depends - some companies may work on the basis that, unless
you have capacity to sue them, they will not spend the effort in
complying; others might consider that there are risks other than simple
litigation, including bad publicity etc., and become motivated to
comply, and, in particular, companies which are not knowingly infringing
(not a defence, I appreciate) may only discover they are infringing by
way of a request such as yours, so I'd strongly suggest that you do not
consider yourself too unimportant to ask! (The worst that can happen is
a company ignores your request, or states that it will not comply unless
it hears from the copyright owner, and you find you have wasted an email.)


> I have already mentioned that I did contact them using the e-mail
> address they have provided.

May I suggest that you consider writing to their "Head of Legal", or
their CEO, or someone like that? It's certainly no guarantee of success,
but, since you've made fair efforts to get an answer, and have been told
there is no information, raising the matter to a senior level, might be
beneficial?


- --




Neil

neil at neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkt0NV8ACgkQr70Z7teoI3sVPQCggT1OmGAJ1Em30OQjYBhMTjVB
NXkAn38hPggpIHVnhIxBzDqnK1HEb5Jc
=f+sW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From alexander.kerner at googlemail.com  Fri Feb 12 12:16:15 2010
From: alexander.kerner at googlemail.com (Alexander Kerner)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:16:15 +0100
Subject: Interead.com Ltd (AKA Coolreaders) violates GPL
Message-ID: <20100212111615.GA12445@hosaka.homeunix.net>


Hi all,

Interead.com Ltd (www.interead.co.uk, www.coolreaders.com) is
violating the GPL. They sell the Cool-er ebook device with linux based
firmware. Also there is a firmware update available on their web site.
I've downloaded the update and found some GPL based software inside,
thereafter I've sent them an email (to support at coolreaders.com) asking
for sources, but they do not answer. After a week of silence I've
tried asking them one more time, but also without success.

The update file is available under
http://www.coolreaders.com/downloads/fw/COOLER-vfat-eb600em-1229.zip
That zip file contains among other things following GPL-licensed software:
1. files/eb600em/u-boot.* - Uboot
2. files/uImage-* - Linux kernel
3. files/eb600em/fs.tgz (contains a rootfs which is being installed
into the device)
    In the fs.tgz you can find busybox and probably other GPL-licensed
software. There is also a file lib/libfb.so, which contains FBReader
(www.fbreader.org, released under GPL) along with my modifications
which are distributed under GPL as well.

Is it possible to enforce releasing the corresponding sources?

Best regards,
Alexander Kerner



From neil at neilzone.co.uk  Fri Feb 12 13:23:01 2010
From: neil at neilzone.co.uk (Neil Brown)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:23:01 +0200
Subject: Interead.com Ltd (AKA Coolreaders) violates GPL
Message-ID: <mailman.1.1265977419.28147.legal@lists.gpl-violations.org>

Alexander

I've discussed this matter with their managing director, but, so far, it has not turned into corresponding source code. I will raise this again.

My gut feeling is that their supplier does not have the source code to give them...


Regards,

Neil



Neil

neil at neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: "Alexander Kerner" <alexander.kerner at googlemail.com>
To: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org
Sent: 12/02/2010 13:16
Subject: Interead.com Ltd (AKA Coolreaders) violates GPL


Hi all,

Interead.com Ltd (www.interead.co.uk, www.coolreaders.com) is
violating the GPL. They sell the Cool-er ebook device with linux based
firmware. Also there is a firmware update available on their web site.
I've downloaded the update and found some GPL based software inside,
thereafter I've sent them an email (to support at coolreaders.com) asking
for sources, but they do not answer. After a week of silence I've
tried asking them one more time, but also without success.

The update file is available under
http://www.coolreaders.com/downloads/fw/COOLER-vfat-eb600em-1229.zip
That zip file contains among other things following GPL-licensed software:
1. files/eb600em/u-boot.* - Uboot
2. files/uImage-* - Linux kernel
3. files/eb600em/fs.tgz (contains a rootfs which is being installed
into the device)
    In the fs.tgz you can find busybox and probably other GPL-licensed
software. There is also a file lib/libfb.so, which contains FBReader
(www.fbreader.org, released under GPL) along with my modifications
which are distributed under GPL as well.

Is it possible to enforce releasing the corresponding sources?

Best regards,
Alexander Kerner





From arnt at c2i.net  Fri Feb 12 14:31:39 2010
From: arnt at c2i.net (Arnt Karlsen)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:31:39 +0100
Subject: Interead.com Ltd (AKA Coolreaders) violates GPL
In-Reply-To: <E1NfuYe-00020z-02@narasimha.gpl-violations.org>
References: <E1NfuYe-00020z-02@narasimha.gpl-violations.org>
Message-ID: <20100212143139.3043ff1f@a45.fmb.no>

On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:23:01 +0200, Neil wrote in message 
<E1NfuYe-00020z-02 at narasimha.gpl-violations.org>:

> Alexander
> 
> I've discussed this matter with their managing director, but, so far,
> it has not turned into corresponding source code. I will raise this
> again.
> 
> My gut feeling is that their supplier does not have the source code
> to give them...

..in that case, they will want to prove that fact, and to make 
their supplier deliver the relevant source code, promptly. ;o)


> Regards,
> 
> Neil
> 
> 
> 
> Neil
> 
> neil at neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Alexander Kerner" <alexander.kerner at googlemail.com>
> To: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org
> Sent: 12/02/2010 13:16
> Subject: Interead.com Ltd (AKA Coolreaders) violates GPL
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Interead.com Ltd (www.interead.co.uk, www.coolreaders.com) is
> violating the GPL. They sell the Cool-er ebook device with linux based
> firmware. Also there is a firmware update available on their web site.
> I've downloaded the update and found some GPL based software inside,
> thereafter I've sent them an email (to support at coolreaders.com) asking
> for sources, but they do not answer. After a week of silence I've
> tried asking them one more time, but also without success.
> 
> The update file is available under
> http://www.coolreaders.com/downloads/fw/COOLER-vfat-eb600em-1229.zip
> That zip file contains among other things following GPL-licensed
> software: 1. files/eb600em/u-boot.* - Uboot
> 2. files/uImage-* - Linux kernel
> 3. files/eb600em/fs.tgz (contains a rootfs which is being installed
> into the device)
>     In the fs.tgz you can find busybox and probably other GPL-licensed
> software. There is also a file lib/libfb.so, which contains FBReader
> (www.fbreader.org, released under GPL) along with my modifications
> which are distributed under GPL as well.
> 
> Is it possible to enforce releasing the corresponding sources?
> 
> Best regards,
> Alexander Kerner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
..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 neil at neilzone.co.uk  Fri Feb 12 15:56:56 2010
From: neil at neilzone.co.uk (Neil Brown)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:56:56 +0000
Subject: Interead.com Ltd (AKA Coolreaders) violates GPL
In-Reply-To: <20100212143139.3043ff1f@a45.fmb.no>
References: <E1NfuYe-00020z-02@narasimha.gpl-violations.org>
	<20100212143139.3043ff1f@a45.fmb.no>
Message-ID: <4B756C38.9020100@neilzone.co.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Arnt Karlsen wrote:

>> My gut feeling is that their supplier does not have the source code
>> to give them...
> 
> ..in that case, they will want to prove that fact, and to make 
> their supplier deliver the relevant source code, promptly. ;o)

Absolutely. But, of course, it's not always that easy ;)

- --




Neil

neil at neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkt1bDQACgkQr70Z7teoI3sm9wCfUA7dwDivBXXl6K6gI8UHEwBu
a/wAn1DWQZ8y0AqdOLLQXUj6OSPSFZKz
=p5E8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From henrik at henriknordstrom.net  Fri Feb 12 21:11:39 2010
From: henrik at henriknordstrom.net (Henrik =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Nordstr=F6m?=)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 21:11:39 +0100
Subject: Interead.com Ltd (AKA Coolreaders) violates GPL
In-Reply-To: <20100212111615.GA12445@hosaka.homeunix.net>
References: <20100212111615.GA12445@hosaka.homeunix.net>
Message-ID: <1266005499.3614.7.camel@localhost.localdomain>

fre 2010-02-12 klockan 12:16 +0100 skrev Alexander Kerner:

> The update file is available under
> http://www.coolreaders.com/downloads/fw/COOLER-vfat-eb600em-1229.zip
> That zip file contains among other things following GPL-licensed software:

firmware seems to indicate the original manufacturer is Netronix.

Regards
Henrik



From bockmatthias at gmx.net  Mon Feb 15 22:52:50 2010
From: bockmatthias at gmx.net (Matthias Bock)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:52:50 +0100
Subject: T-Mobile doesn't provide the source of web'n'walk-Box Linux Driver
Message-ID: <2abf003a7fd0961e459a6955a4324348.squirrel@webmail.cms.hu-berlin.de>

Hello,

T-Mobile is selling different USB-UMTS-Modems, they call
"web'n'walk-Boxes". A Linux Driver called "HWActivator"
is provided in the internal memory of the device and on
the driver CD-ROM.

For some reasons this driver doesn't work on my computer,
so I wanted to have a look at the source code.
A file named "copying" is present in the driver's
directory/zip-archive, containing the GNU GPL v2 License Text.
I concluded, the source code would be available on
T-Mobile's web site, but it is not, and the support
center refuses to provide it.
They argue, that the program is not licensed under the GPL.

In fact, I can not find a statement explicitely saying
something like "HWActivator is licensed under the
GNU GPL license, which you can find in the file copying".
As far as I can judge, HWActivator is nevertheless obviously
GPL'ed (maybe because it is derived from other GPL'ed software?).

What's the legal situation ?
Do I have the right to insist on getting the source code ?

Regards, Mat



From neil at neilzone.co.uk  Mon Feb 15 23:02:33 2010
From: neil at neilzone.co.uk (Neil Brown)
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:02:33 +0000
Subject: T-Mobile doesn't provide the source of web'n'walk-Box Linux Driver
In-Reply-To: <2abf003a7fd0961e459a6955a4324348.squirrel@webmail.cms.hu-berlin.de>
References: <2abf003a7fd0961e459a6955a4324348.squirrel@webmail.cms.hu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <4B79C479.8070309@neilzone.co.uk>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Matthias Bock wrote:

> As far as I can judge, HWActivator is nevertheless obviously
> GPL'ed (maybe because it is derived from other GPL'ed software?).

On what basis are you making this judgment? (I.e. do you have evidence
that it contains GPL'd code, other than the existence of a "copying"
file, which does not appear to relate to anything in particular?)

> What's the legal situation ?
> Do I have the right to insist on getting the source code ?

It would be worth understanding the factual situation first, before
trying to offer some guidance as to the possible legal situation, to my
mind.

- --




Neil


neil at neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLecR5r70Z7teoI3sRAtUNAJ9zJsDGIf6rrzeU6jqzAIcZVacEeACdGnjF
EyXykYMPYXvnKXmGDQpxJoI=
=pSVh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


From twaffle at gmail.com  Tue Feb 16 14:13:40 2010
From: twaffle at gmail.com (Thomas Charron)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 08:13:40 -0500
Subject: T-Mobile doesn't provide the source of web'n'walk-Box Linux 
	Driver
In-Reply-To: <2abf003a7fd0961e459a6955a4324348.squirrel@webmail.cms.hu-berlin.de>
References: <2abf003a7fd0961e459a6955a4324348.squirrel@webmail.cms.hu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <30dfe2a81002160513i69220121n8687fbbb59908a68@mail.gmail.com>

  Refer to http://www.fk21.co.uk/cgi-bin/fk21.cgi?sub=tmobile for a
general idea on how you might be able to work.  Note, however, that HW
Activator is a utility front end to the actual modem driver.

  Oh, and it WAS all provided on the CD-ROM that came with it.

http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=29791

  Thomas

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Matthias Bock <bockmatthias at gmx.net> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> T-Mobile is selling different USB-UMTS-Modems, they call
> "web'n'walk-Boxes". A Linux Driver called "HWActivator"
> is provided in the internal memory of the device and on
> the driver CD-ROM.
>
> For some reasons this driver doesn't work on my computer,
> so I wanted to have a look at the source code.
> A file named "copying" is present in the driver's
> directory/zip-archive, containing the GNU GPL v2 License Text.
> I concluded, the source code would be available on
> T-Mobile's web site, but it is not, and the support
> center refuses to provide it.
> They argue, that the program is not licensed under the GPL.
>
> In fact, I can not find a statement explicitely saying
> something like "HWActivator is licensed under the
> GNU GPL license, which you can find in the file copying".
> As far as I can judge, HWActivator is nevertheless obviously
> GPL'ed (maybe because it is derived from other GPL'ed software?).
>
> What's the legal situation ?
> Do I have the right to insist on getting the source code ?
>
> Regards, Mat
>
>
>



-- 
-- Thomas


From jose.bandos at gmail.com  Tue Feb 16 15:07:01 2010
From: jose.bandos at gmail.com (Jose Bernardo Bandos Rodrigues)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:07:01 +0100
Subject: T-Mobile doesn't provide the source of web'n'walk-Box Linux 
	Driver
In-Reply-To: <30dfe2a81002160513i69220121n8687fbbb59908a68@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2abf003a7fd0961e459a6955a4324348.squirrel@webmail.cms.hu-berlin.de>
	<30dfe2a81002160513i69220121n8687fbbb59908a68@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a68eac411002160607v6172779ewa177ff55977f3e2a@mail.gmail.com>

HI all,
Sorry to intrude, but HWActivator is the Huawei supplied utility to switch
their modems from CD to Modem mode. It is included with a MobilePartner java
application and a jre usually. I have also looked a little into it, and
while the strings inside and ldd point to HWA using gpl code, I didn't have
the time to dig much further.
What I also found was that the Huawei-ppp-on-dialer has a email address,
jiangyanfeng at gmail.com, which might put you in reach with one of developers.
Regards,

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 14:13, Thomas Charron <twaffle at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Refer to http://www.fk21.co.uk/cgi-bin/fk21.cgi?sub=tmobile for a
> general idea on how you might be able to work.  Note, however, that HW
> Activator is a utility front end to the actual modem driver.
>
>  Oh, and it WAS all provided on the CD-ROM that came with it.
>
> http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=29791
>
>  Thomas
>
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Matthias Bock <bockmatthias at gmx.net>
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > T-Mobile is selling different USB-UMTS-Modems, they call
> > "web'n'walk-Boxes". A Linux Driver called "HWActivator"
> > is provided in the internal memory of the device and on
> > the driver CD-ROM.
> >
> > For some reasons this driver doesn't work on my computer,
> > so I wanted to have a look at the source code.
> > A file named "copying" is present in the driver's
> > directory/zip-archive, containing the GNU GPL v2 License Text.
> > I concluded, the source code would be available on
> > T-Mobile's web site, but it is not, and the support
> > center refuses to provide it.
> > They argue, that the program is not licensed under the GPL.
> >
> > In fact, I can not find a statement explicitely saying
> > something like "HWActivator is licensed under the
> > GNU GPL license, which you can find in the file copying".
> > As far as I can judge, HWActivator is nevertheless obviously
> > GPL'ed (maybe because it is derived from other GPL'ed software?).
> >
> > What's the legal situation ?
> > Do I have the right to insist on getting the source code ?
> >
> > Regards, Mat
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -- Thomas
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20100216/a595095a/attachment.htm 

From bockmatthias at gmx.net  Thu Feb 18 15:42:36 2010
From: bockmatthias at gmx.net (Matthias Bock)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:42:36 +0100
Subject: T-Mobile doesn't provide the source of web'n'walk-Box Linux  
	Driver
In-Reply-To: <a68eac411002160607v6172779ewa177ff55977f3e2a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2abf003a7fd0961e459a6955a4324348.squirrel@webmail.cms.hu-berlin.de>
	<30dfe2a81002160513i69220121n8687fbbb59908a68@mail.gmail.com>
	<a68eac411002160607v6172779ewa177ff55977f3e2a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8ac0ea719f53bc23c5277a8bfec90d89.squirrel@webmail.cms.hu-berlin.de>

Hi,

yes, I have read also, that it is a switching utility. Since the
device is capable of receiving terrestrial television (DVB-T) too,
I was hoping, HWActivator would somehow be able to switch the device
from modem to television mode or provide a hint, how to do it.
Television is currently not working,
that's one of the reasons, I need the source.

BTW: What do you mean by the modem's "CD mode" ?

To answear Neil's question, why I suspect it to use GPL'ed software:
There are several occurences of the word "GNU" and "Debian" in the file.
I know, that's poor evidence. I'm not an expert.
That's all I can say about this.
But when T-Mobile and Huawei do not want to provide any source code,
why would they attach a GPL license text to the program ?
=> Because they are forced to put it ?
As I said: Maybe. That's how I came to this suspicion.

Regards,
Mat