* Re: [gnu.org #214016] GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox + code
[not found] <rt-214016@gnu.org>
@ 2004-11-09 0:11 ` novalis@fsf.org via RT
2004-11-09 12:07 ` Alan Cox via RT
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: novalis@fsf.org via RT @ 2004-11-09 0:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: shawn.starr; +Cc: license-violation, linux-kernel
On Sun, 2004-11-07 at 12:27 -0500, Shawn Starr via RT wrote:
>
> I dont know if this has been brought up but, a company called sveasoft is
> blatently violating the GPL by not releasing any code
Under the GPL, nobody has to give any particular person copies of the
binaries. They are free to sell binaries for whatever price they like.
But if you distribute binaries, you must either include or offer source
code. Do they do this? What software do they include that FSF holds
copyright on? Where can I check this?
Do they include a copy of the GPL with the software?
--
-Dave Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [gnu.org #214016] GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox + code
[not found] <rt-214016@gnu.org>
2004-11-09 0:11 ` [gnu.org #214016] GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox + code novalis@fsf.org via RT
@ 2004-11-09 12:07 ` Alan Cox via RT
2004-11-09 15:20 ` Shawn Starr
2004-11-09 15:21 ` Shawn Starr via RT
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox via RT @ 2004-11-09 12:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: shawn.starr; +Cc: license-violation, linux-kernel
On Maw, 2004-11-09 at 00:11, novalis@fsf.org via RT wrote:
> But if you distribute binaries, you must either include or offer source
> code. Do they do this? What software do they include that FSF holds
> copyright on? Where can I check this?
>
> Do they include a copy of the GPL with the software?
They include the GPL, they include the source nothing I can find they do
violates the GPL. They do appear to annoy a few people because their
policy is that while you may join their early access process and get
source if you redistribute that source then you get kicked off their
program, but you are still allowed to distribute that source.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [gnu.org #214016] GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox + code
2004-11-09 12:07 ` Alan Cox via RT
@ 2004-11-09 15:20 ` Shawn Starr
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Shawn Starr @ 2004-11-09 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: license-violation; +Cc: license-violation, linux-kernel
They won't be distributing the source because of their new
anti-distribution methods, they aren't providing the source because they
don't want people to distribute the binaries any more either or know now the
anti-distribution mechanism will work (which requires the user to enter a
value to unlock the binary firmware and send a request to their servers).
It is this action that they are violating the GPL and that needs to be
enforced.
If they want to relicense their changes they need to not use GPL existing code
which they are not doing. They have not added written any of this code from
scratch and thus must distribute the source on request to those who get the
binaries which they are not doing anymore.
What was true before of redistribution and being kicked out of the program is
now not happening anymore as there is no code to distribute of the resulting
binaries.
Shawn.
On November 9, 2004 07:07, Alan Cox via RT wrote:
> On Maw, 2004-11-09 at 00:11, novalis@fsf.org via RT wrote:
> > But if you distribute binaries, you must either include or offer source
> > code. Do they do this? What software do they include that FSF holds
> > copyright on? Where can I check this?
> >
> > Do they include a copy of the GPL with the software?
>
> They include the GPL, they include the source nothing I can find they do
> violates the GPL. They do appear to annoy a few people because their
> policy is that while you may join their early access process and get
> source if you redistribute that source then you get kicked off their
> program, but you are still allowed to distribute that source.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [gnu.org #214016] GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox + code
[not found] <rt-214016@gnu.org>
2004-11-09 0:11 ` [gnu.org #214016] GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox + code novalis@fsf.org via RT
2004-11-09 12:07 ` Alan Cox via RT
@ 2004-11-09 15:21 ` Shawn Starr via RT
2004-11-09 15:28 ` Shawn Starr via RT
2004-11-11 0:23 ` novalis@fsf.org via RT
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Shawn Starr via RT @ 2004-11-09 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: license-violation, linux-kernel
They won't be distributing the source because of their new
anti-distribution methods, they aren't providing the source because they
don't want people to distribute the binaries any more either or know now the
anti-distribution mechanism will work (which requires the user to enter a
value to unlock the binary firmware and send a request to their servers).
It is this action that they are violating the GPL and that needs to be
enforced.
If they want to relicense their changes they need to not use GPL existing code
which they are not doing. They have not added written any of this code from
scratch and thus must distribute the source on request to those who get the
binaries which they are not doing anymore.
What was true before of redistribution and being kicked out of the program is
now not happening anymore as there is no code to distribute of the resulting
binaries.
Shawn.
On November 9, 2004 07:07, Alan Cox via RT wrote:
> On Maw, 2004-11-09 at 00:11, novalis@fsf.org via RT wrote:
> > But if you distribute binaries, you must either include or offer source
> > code. Do they do this? What software do they include that FSF holds
> > copyright on? Where can I check this?
> >
> > Do they include a copy of the GPL with the software?
>
> They include the GPL, they include the source nothing I can find they do
> violates the GPL. They do appear to annoy a few people because their
> policy is that while you may join their early access process and get
> source if you redistribute that source then you get kicked off their
> program, but you are still allowed to distribute that source.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [gnu.org #214016] GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox + code
[not found] <rt-214016@gnu.org>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-09 15:21 ` Shawn Starr via RT
@ 2004-11-09 15:28 ` Shawn Starr via RT
2004-11-11 0:23 ` novalis@fsf.org via RT
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Shawn Starr via RT @ 2004-11-09 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
Cc: license-violation, linux-kernel
They won't be distributing the source because of their new
anti-distribution methods, they aren't providing the source because they
don't want people to distribute the binaries any more either or know now the
anti-distribution mechanism will work (which requires the user to enter a
value to unlock the binary firmware and send a request to their servers).
It is this action that they are violating the GPL and that needs to be
enforced.
If they want to relicense their changes they need to not use GPL existing code
which they are not doing. They have not added written any of this code from
scratch and thus must distribute the source on request to those who get the
binaries which they are not doing anymore.
What was true before of redistribution and being kicked out of the program is
now not happening anymore as there is no code to distribute of the resulting
binaries.
Shawn.
On November 9, 2004 07:07, Alan Cox via RT wrote:
> On Maw, 2004-11-09 at 00:11, novalis@fsf.org via RT wrote:
> > But if you distribute binaries, you must either include or offer source
> > code. Do they do this? What software do they include that FSF holds
> > copyright on? Where can I check this?
> >
> > Do they include a copy of the GPL with the software?
>
> They include the GPL, they include the source nothing I can find they do
> violates the GPL. They do appear to annoy a few people because their
> policy is that while you may join their early access process and get
> source if you redistribute that source then you get kicked off their
> program, but you are still allowed to distribute that source.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [gnu.org #214016] GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox + code
[not found] <rt-214016@gnu.org>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-11-09 15:28 ` Shawn Starr via RT
@ 2004-11-11 0:23 ` novalis@fsf.org via RT
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: novalis@fsf.org via RT @ 2004-11-11 0:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: shawn.starr; +Cc: license-violation, linux-kernel
I didn't realize linux-kernel was CC'd here. I'm going to take this
off-list with Shawn, because I don't want to waste everyone's time. If
anyone else has any information about this, please feel free to email me
at <license-violation@fsf.org> . Thanks.
On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 10:21 -0500, Shawn Starr via RT wrote:
> REPLIES GO TO REQUESTORS BY DEFAULT.
>
> <URL: http://rt.gnu.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=214016 >
>
> They won't be distributing the source because of their new
> anti-distribution methods, they aren't providing the source because they
> don't want people to distribute the binaries any more either or know now the
> anti-distribution mechanism will work (which requires the user to enter a
> value to unlock the binary firmware and send a request to their servers).
>
> It is this action that they are violating the GPL and that needs to be
> enforced.
>
> If they want to relicense their changes they need to not use GPL existing code
> which they are not doing. They have not added written any of this code from
> scratch and thus must distribute the source on request to those who get the
> binaries which they are not doing anymore.
>
> What was true before of redistribution and being kicked out of the program is
> now not happening anymore as there is no code to distribute of the resulting
> binaries.
>
> Shawn.
>
> On November 9, 2004 07:07, Alan Cox via RT wrote:
> > On Maw, 2004-11-09 at 00:11, novalis@fsf.org via RT wrote:
> > > But if you distribute binaries, you must either include or offer source
> > > code. Do they do this? What software do they include that FSF holds
> > > copyright on? Where can I check this?
> > >
> > > Do they include a copy of the GPL with the software?
> >
> > They include the GPL, they include the source nothing I can find they do
> > violates the GPL. They do appear to annoy a few people because their
> > policy is that while you may join their early access process and get
> > source if you redistribute that source then you get kicked off their
> > program, but you are still allowed to distribute that source.
>
--
-Dave Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-11-11 0:25 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <rt-214016@gnu.org>
2004-11-09 0:11 ` [gnu.org #214016] GPL Violation of 'sveasoft' with GPL Linux Kernel/Busybox + code novalis@fsf.org via RT
2004-11-09 12:07 ` Alan Cox via RT
2004-11-09 15:20 ` Shawn Starr
2004-11-09 15:21 ` Shawn Starr via RT
2004-11-09 15:28 ` Shawn Starr via RT
2004-11-11 0:23 ` novalis@fsf.org via RT
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.