D-Link in Brazil.

[Andre Caldas]

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.


André Caldas.