[Arm-netbook] A13 schematic

[Alejandro Mery]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 22:44, Henrik Nordström
<henrik at henriknordstrom.net> wrote:
> sön 2012-04-29 klockan 19:57 +0100 skrev lkcl luke:
>
>>  that's absolutely correct.  the *only* obligation under the GPL is to
>> provide source (on request) to the people that you have shipped
>> binaries to, and ONLY to those people, and to absolutely no other
>> person, persons or entities.
>
> Err, there is two options to a manufacturer
>
> a) Either you ship the sources as part of the distribution to your
> customers. End of story. For a SoC manufacturer this path generally
> makes most sense as most direct customers do need to rebuild kernel etc.
> What your cusomers do with received binaries & source is not your
> headache.
>
> b) OR you include a written offer valid for ANY THIRD PARTY for three
> years to receive a copy of the sources.
>
> If you select 'b' then the offer is valid for anyone who have received a
> copy of the written offer, which in effect also means anyone who have
> received binaries compiled from the sources as further binary
> redistribution requires sources or a copy of the written offer. The last
> option is valid for non-commercial distribution only.
>
> Further, if you select 'b' then you need to be prepared to provide the
> exact sources for any version you have distributed under these terms
> until the written offer expires (three years). Only being able to
> provide the latest (or some version) of the sources is not sufficient.
>
> GPLv3 clarifies and adjusts source distribution in an online environment
> a lot compared to GPLv2. The rules in GPLv2 is a bit arcane in that area
> basically requiring physical redistribution of source in most cases. I
> have not heard of any GPLv2 author who gets upset if you follow the
> GPLv3 source distribution terms for GPLv2 code.
>
> In neither case may there be additional restrictions on redistribution
> of either source or binary. An NDA which limits redistribution of GPL
> components is not acceptable. Any non-GPL parts may be limited by NDA
> however. I.e. userspace, and perhaps even kernel modules in some cases
> even if that's a very murky area.
>
> Some try to use another approach to limit GPL redistribution where you
> loose other service rights if you do redistribute binaries of GPL
> components. This have so far have not been challenged but is not
> regarded as fair. For a SoC vendor this would be impossible as it means
> your customers can not redistribute the software for the built product.

I'm "sightly" more puzzled now. so grounding the answer to three cases.
1) let's say you are a board manufacturer called... Tsvetan who wants
to distribute not only binaries but sources to his customers but the
SoC manufacturer only gives him binary images of the GPLv2 code unless
he buys a large amount of chips. Can he "demand" to get the exact
sources behind that binary anyway.
2) you buy a branded device, let's say an Ainol Tablet, which comes
with binaries of GPLv2 code, can you "demand" the manufacturer and the
soc manufacturers to give you the exact sources behind that binary?
3) if not, what if the manufacturer makes a firmware upgrade available
for downloading (either manual or automatic, OTA), can we now?