From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262797AbTJFI3Q (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Oct 2003 04:29:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262804AbTJFI3Q (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Oct 2003 04:29:16 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.86.99.235]:57006 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262797AbTJFI3O (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Oct 2003 04:29:14 -0400 Subject: Re: Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations From: David Woodhouse To: David Turner Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1064859766.20847.33983.camel@banks> References: <1064859766.20847.33983.camel@banks> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1065428944.22491.169.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-2.dwmw2.3) Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:29:05 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: dwmw2@infradead.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No; SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-Pentafluge-Mail-From: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 14:22 -0400, David Turner wrote: > To Linux Developers Concerned about the Linksys/Cisco GPL Violations: > > We are in ongoing negotiating with Linksys/Cisco about this issue. I fail to comprehend. In the United Kingdom, Linksys-Cisco B.V. are committing a criminal offence under the provisions of Section 107(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, by knowingly distributing software without the licence of the copyright owner. Even if the source were to appear on their web site today, their packaging remains a problem since it contains neither said source nor a written offer to provide it. In order to comply, they _must_ recall this product and amend the packaging. So even if they are already working on putting the source on their web site, they still need to recall the product -- and should already have done so. Once they have withdrawn these products from the market and ceased to commit this criminal offence, _then_ there is scope for negotiation regarding the ways in which they can re-release the products. Until then, I see none. By continuing to unlawfully sell this product, Cisco are clearly demonstrating that they are not acting in good faith. I would like to know if this is also a criminal matter in the United States, and if you have also discussed this with the appropriate authorities, rather than only with Linksys/Cisco? I would also like to know if in the US, as in the UK, it is also an offence for the _retailers_ and _distributors_ of these products to continue to sell them after being informed of the problem. And have they each been informed in a manner which allows it to be proven in a criminal court that they had 'reason to believe' (to use the phrase from the 1988 Act) that there was a problem? -- dwmw2