[Arm-netbook] GPL violations (again)

[luke.leighton]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:49 PM, joem <joem at martindale-electric.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-08-28 at 13:24 +0100, luke.leighton wrote:
>
>>  "intention" is not good enough, but that's not the issue kenney.
>>
>>  because they *have* provided binaries, they need to release the
>> *exact* same source... which is precisely what that 4th post
>> *explicitly* says that they have no intention of doing so.
>
> To be fair Luke what they said was that what they released was dirty
> and will get out a clean one.

 exactly: releasing a "dirty" one does not remove the obligation to
provide the source code for that "dirty" one.

 the GPL is very clear: if you cannot release source then the only way
to comply with the licenseis to cease distribution of the binary.


> Meaning what they released used binaries and/or proprietary stuff when
> it got built. 'It got the job done', but they can never release the full
> sources for it because they don't have it.

 then they should not have distributed the binaries.


> Should they have released the 'dirty' binary?

 absolutely not.  ok, only if they *wanted* to receive cease and desist orders.


> Hard to say.

 no it's not: it's very very clear.


> They could point at all the bits and say
> this is how you would build that 'dirty' binary, and then say
> here is one we did earlier. Less evil but still problematic for sure.

 what they *should* have done is point people at the sources, provide
instructions and let people make their own binaries.  then they would
not themselves be in violation of the GPL.  what their customers do
with the binaries that their *customers* make is *not* their problem:
it's what *they* make if it's GPL violating that's their problem.

 now they are under a legal obligation to provide the source, which is
incredibly foolish of them.  and, as they are quite experienced,
having been in this business for some time, it is safe to say that
this is knowingly-infringing, as well.

 the only good side of this is that they'll be able to pressurise
allwinner for GPL compliance.

l.