Dell vs. GPL

[Fluke <fluke@gibson.mw.luc.edu>]

  Dell is providing binary only derived works of the Linux kernel and the 
modutils package at ftp://ftp.dell.com/fixes/boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz

  The GPL appears to provide four terms under section 3 that Dell may 
legally redistribute these works:

- In regards to GPL 3a, Dell does *NOT* provide the source code as part of 
the tar.gz
- In regards to GPL 3b, Dell does *NOT* provide a written offer as part of 
the tar.gz
- In regards to GPL 3c, Dell does *NOT* provide information regarding an 
offer to the source code as part of the tar.gz
- Lastly, Dell does *NOT* provide equivalent access to the source code 
from the same ftp site

  I contacted Dell support and recieved confirmation that Dell does not 
intend to provide the source code to these binary works.  He explained 
that all Dell fixes are licensed by Dell from third parties for use by 
Dell customers in binary only form and "Dell does not intend the fixes to 
be open source products."

  If they don't want to honor the GPL with their fixes, why do they 
continue to claim to take Linux seriously and why does RedHat continue to 
back them?

  This is not the first time I have run into Dell trying to mislead 
customers in regards to open source.  Dell continues to distribute their 
ESM kernel module under an "open_src" directory and a license which 
redistricts use, modification and redistribution.  I'm not sure how it 
could ever qualify as an OSI approved license but it is clear that Dell is 
trying to pass it off as such.

  I have also tried to contact RedHat activities but based on the responce 
that I got from Mark Webbink, I don't think RedHat is prepaired to do 
anything about it.

  Is the GPL as it applies to the kernel intended to be a legal set of 
requirements or simply a set of optional guidelines like Dell/RedHat seems 
to be treating it?

Thanks