legal Digest, Vol 81, Issue 16

Thu Aug 18 15:46:37 CEST 2011

>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of legal digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: VODAFONE VIOLATED THE GPL LICENSE ? (Paolo Del Bene)
>

      Vodafone has violated the GPL License with the product huawei
(branded: VODAFONE STATION) ?

      awaiting your reply,

     Paolo

>
>
>
> ---------- Messaggio inoltrato ----------
> From: Joseph Heenan <joseph at heenan.me.uk>
> To: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:21:51 +0100
> Subject: Re: HTC Inspire 4g Kernel Source
> On 18/08/2011 08:46, Lokkju Brennr wrote:
>
>> I've always thought (for no apparent reason) that the source offer had
>> to be made, and responded to, immediately.  Since 3(b) is an
>> *alternative* to 3(a), and 3(a) provides immediate access, the intent
>> seems obvious.
>>
> That's certainly a possible interpretation, though I think it might be
> regarded as an unreasonable one - eg. if the person that is dealing with it
> is on lunch break when the request arrives, the business would be unable to
> responsible immediately.
>
>
>> As a slight aside, doesn't 3(c) specifically prohibit the passing on
>> of HTC's offer by third parties (whoever you bought the device from,
>> or the carrier)?
>>
>>  This was discussed here about 2 days ago, so to summarise: No, we believe
> it doesn't.
>
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Messaggio inoltrato ----------
> From: Neil Brown <neil at neilzone.co.uk>
> To: Joseph Heenan <joseph at heenan.me.uk>
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:34:24 +0100
> Subject: Re: HTC Inspire 4g Kernel Source
>
> On 18 Aug 2011, at 09:21, Joseph Heenan wrote:
>
> > On 18/08/2011 08:46, Lokkju Brennr wrote:
> >> I've always thought (for no apparent reason) that the source offer had
> >> to be made, and responded to, immediately.  Since 3(b) is an
> >> *alternative* to 3(a), and 3(a) provides immediate access, the intent
> >> seems obvious.
> > That's certainly a possible interpretation, though I think it might be
> regarded as an unreasonable one - eg. if the person that is dealing with it
> is on lunch break when the request arrives, the business would be unable to
> responsible immediately.
>
> I do have some sympathy with what Lokkju says, but, in my mind, at least,
> it still fits with my interpretation of the clause - the time to provide the
> source should allow for the reasonable handling of correspondence, rather
> than for a reasonable time of sorting out source code, packaging it etc. One
> should be expected to have this available when the product is released, such
> that it can be distributed on receipt of a claim under s3(b).
>
> I think that expecting someone to respond to an email *immediately* is
> perhaps overstating the case - but I would expect that the time to respond
> should be just that, rather than time to find the source tree, check it
> matches the binary etc.
>
>
>
> Neil
>
> __________
>
> Neil Brown
> neil at neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Messaggio inoltrato ----------
> From: Lokkju Brennr <lokkju at gmail.com>
> To: Joseph Heenan <joseph at heenan.me.uk>
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:38:54 -0700
> Subject: Re: HTC Inspire 4g Kernel Source
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Joseph Heenan <joseph at heenan.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > That's certainly a possible interpretation, though I think it might be
> > regarded as an unreasonable one - eg. if the person that is dealing with
> it
> > is on lunch break when the request arrives, the business would be unable
> to
> > responsible immediately.
> "immediate" does have different meanings, admittedly, and there should
> be some variation.  Without taking into account the intent of the
> contract though (which courts seem loath to do), I'm not sure how else
> 3(b) could be enforced at all.  HTC is correct - it *does not*
> stipulate a response time, and I've seen a couple cases where courts
> have examined state laws that failed to specify a response time...
> and ruled that since it was not specified, the state agency in
> question could take as long as it wanted.
>
> >> As a slight aside, doesn't 3(c) specifically prohibit the passing on
> >> of HTC's offer by third parties (whoever you bought the device from,
> >> or the carrier)?
> >>
> > This was discussed here about 2 days ago, so to summarise: No, we believe
> it
> > doesn't.
> Heh, the take I got from that discussion wasn't that anyone believes
> it doesn't, but instead that no one is following it.
>
> Loki
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Messaggio inoltrato ----------
> From: Joseph Heenan <joseph at heenan.me.uk>
> To: legal at lists.gpl-violations.org
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:40:52 +0100
> Subject: Re: HTC Inspire 4g Kernel Source
> On 18/08/2011 09:34, Neil Brown wrote:
>
>> On 18 Aug 2011, at 09:21, Joseph Heenan wrote:
>>
>>  On 18/08/2011 08:46, Lokkju Brennr wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've always thought (for no apparent reason) that the source offer had
>>>> to be made, and responded to, immediately.  Since 3(b) is an
>>>> *alternative* to 3(a), and 3(a) provides immediate access, the intent
>>>> seems obvious.
>>>>
>>> That's certainly a possible interpretation, though I think it might be
>>> regarded as an unreasonable one - eg. if the person that is dealing with it
>>> is on lunch break when the request arrives, the business would be unable to
>>> responsible immediately.
>>>
>> I do have some sympathy with what Lokkju says, but, in my mind, at least,
>> it still fits with my interpretation of the clause - the time to provide the
>> source should allow for the reasonable handling of correspondence, rather
>> than for a reasonable time of sorting out source code, packaging it etc. One
>> should be expected to have this available when the product is released, such
>> that it can be distributed on receipt of a claim under s3(b).
>>
>> I think that expecting someone to respond to an email *immediately* is
>> perhaps overstating the case - but I would expect that the time to respond
>> should be just that, rather than time to find the source tree, check it
>> matches the binary etc.
>>
> Yes - that certainly sounds like a better way of stating it than mine.
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Messaggio inoltrato ----------
> From: Joseph Heenan <joseph at heenan.me.uk>
> To:
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:43:55 +0100
> Subject: Re: HTC Inspire 4g Kernel Source
> On 18/08/2011 09:38, Lokkju Brennr wrote:
>
>> As a slight aside, doesn't 3(c) specifically prohibit the passing on
>> of HTC's offer by third parties (whoever you bought the device from,
>> or the carrier)?
>>
>>  This was discussed here about 2 days ago, so to summarise: No, we believe
>>> it
>>> doesn't.
>>>
>> Heh, the take I got from that discussion wasn't that anyone believes
>> it doesn't, but instead that no one is following it.
>>
>>  Basically it is acceptable to have a commercial arrangement with a third
> party to provide the source.
>
> (What's not acceptable is for a commercial distributor to say "here's the
> link to get the source from kernel.org", or "I'm just using the same
> source htc released in my own product, go get the source from them".)
>
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Messaggio inoltrato ----------
> From: Lokkju Brennr <lokkju at gmail.com>
> To: Joseph Heenan <joseph at heenan.me.uk>
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:48:27 -0700
> Subject: Re: HTC Inspire 4g Kernel Source
> I don't want to hijack this thread, so I'll just say that to me, it
> sounds expressly disallowed...  and that I'll start a dedicated thread
> for it soon.
>
> Loki
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Joseph Heenan <joseph at heenan.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > On 18/08/2011 09:38, Lokkju Brennr wrote:
> >>
> >> As a slight aside, doesn't 3(c) specifically prohibit the passing on
> >> of HTC's offer by third parties (whoever you bought the device from,
> >> or the carrier)?
> >>
> >>> This was discussed here about 2 days ago, so to summarise: No, we
> believe
> >>> it
> >>> doesn't.
> >>
> >> Heh, the take I got from that discussion wasn't that anyone believes
> >> it doesn't, but instead that no one is following it.
> >>
> > Basically it is acceptable to have a commercial arrangement with a third
> > party to provide the source.
> >
> > (What's not acceptable is for a commercial distributor to say "here's the
> > link to get the source from kernel.org", or "I'm just using the same
> source
> > htc released in my own product, go get the source from them".)
> >
> >
> > Joseph
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Messaggio inoltrato ----------
> From: Neil Brown <neil at neilzone.co.uk>
> To: Lokkju Brennr <lokkju at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:58:58 +0100
> Subject: Re: HTC Inspire 4g Kernel Source
>
> On 18 Aug 2011, at 09:48, Lokkju Brennr wrote:
>
> > I'll just say that to me, it
> > sounds expressly disallowed
>
> I'll be interested in your thread, since, to my mind, I see no reason why a
> distributor could not sub-contract to, or otherwise rely on, a supplier (or
> other third party's) distribution of the code - it does not remove the
> distributor's liability as against a recipient (or, perhaps more relevantly,
> the copyright owner) in the event of failure.
>
>
> Neil
>
> __________
>
> Neil Brown
> neil at neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal mailing list
> legal at lists.gpl-violations.org
> https://lists.gpl-violations.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20110818/fbc66164/attachment-0001.htm>