[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Tuesday 26 April 2005 11:10 pm, Simon Waters wrote:
Robin Cornelius wrote: | Here's a question | Some hardware suppliers have been supplying a binary only kernel module that | is built with the GPL flag enabled, ie modinfo shows licence GPL. Therefor | one assumes the module is gpl, yes?. Ok so no source code is available, lots | of people complain and get basically no response from company. Did the company distribute this module to you? If yes, and it appears to be GPL, I suggest you report this to the FSF if the supplier is unresponsive.
I've been reading up on this again - the only ones who can push for a violation of the GPL are the copyright holders. If that isn't declared as the FSF, there's not a lot the FSF can do. As it stands, the copyright holder is not identified so no-one can actually prosecute for a violation without first proving their copyright. As for the source code: From the FSF FAQ. "I want to distribute binaries without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order? You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL. When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post. If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that. Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in the first place." http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet So Robin, you do have the absolute right to insist on the source code for the binary module to be sent a copy of the source code for the module on physical media. That should eliminate any doubt about the origins of the binary.
It can generally be proved sufficiently for legal purposes that a binary was generated from given source (or something derived from) but it is irrelevant, the obligation within the GPL falls on the person redistributing the software (unless exempt under one of the exceptions).
That's true - I was reading the GPL FAQ just before your post arrived. After reading that, I don't think there can be a reason for any dispute over the source being attributable to the binary. If, as Simon commented, you can show that the binary resulted from the given source *or something derived from the given source*, then the code is covered by the GPL and you can distribute it freely. It's always worth raising it with the copyright holder though - if only so that the versions you distribute can be properly attributed. Before you modify or distribute this source, Robin, add the GPL header to every file along with a copyright declaration on behalf of the author of the binary. Copyright does exist by default, it's only wise to make sure that anyone who receives a copy from you gets a properly licenced one.
Of course if they arranged for it to be in the linspire apt pool, they might well point you at that and say "get it from there", and whilst that might not satisfy the letter of the GPL it satisfies the spirit, and the FSF may not be that concerned.
As above, if they confirm that what is already available IS the source code for the binary, it is up to you - under the GPL - to say if that is convenient and acceptable. You do still have the right to physical media. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.dcglug.org.uk/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgp00043.pgp
Description: PGP signature