[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Monday 26 November 2007 09:45, Neil Williams wrote: > Simon Robert wrote: > > Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 06:26:39PM +0000, Simon Robert wrote: > >> > >> > >> Whilst it's a good thing that companies are starting to ship end-user > >> machines with GNU/Linux preinstalled, doing so without complying with > >> the licences is not only no better than only shipping Windows, it's > >> worse as it runs counter to the main aim of free software. > > > > its not the laptop as such which infringes the GPL, but the company by > > not posting the source code (which they are under no obligation to do > > anyhow). > > The GPL does require them to make the source code available and the > company are attempting to do so via the website so they are required to > fix their implementation as that is their chosen method of making the > source code available under the GPL. > > > So this (non) infringement will be solved when they do whatever > > it is they have to do with the source code and the previously sold > > gizmos will be gpl'd. What do they actually have to do to solve this in > > legal rather than best practice terms? > > Make good on the promise in the GPL to make the source code available to > anyone who asks. In practice, that means fixing the website because > posting a CD/DVD to everyone who asks is going to be prohibitively > expensive. > > > Guess it is supply code if asked, > > though looking at the standard of english on their website you may have > > to request it in Chinese as they can't even spell Debian. Maybe this > > whole storm in a teaspoon is down to language difficulties? > > Some people have been able to download the source code and unpack it - > things are improving. It's not the all-clear yet but definitely > improving. Asus are "showing willing" which is good. There does seem to have been some fiddling with the code - removal of credits etc. Some have suggested that it may be an attempt to hide their tracks. It may be that they don't quite get the GPL and want to try and keep some developments away from their competitors -the machine is bought in bits after all. They also have a (short) history of GPL violation. Sure give them the benefit of the doubt and let them try and fix the problem but don't throw money at them until they fix it. Microsoft have shown willing to the EU - the only thing that counts is the end result. Its not a Linux PC until its GPL compliant. Tom te tom te tom -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html