Re: Dell vs. GPL

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

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Jan Harkes wrote:

> Did you even read any of the messages in the long thread you started?
> This is probably the one you missed,
> 
>     http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105716363117866&w=2

Yes, I missed this one.  I was just as quick to dismiss Andre Hedrick as 
he was to dismiss the copyright I hold on my contributions to the kernel.

** AND YET THE VIOLATION OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE BY DELL CONTINUES **

The ISO does provide the source code to the kernel and true to character 
it appears that Andre Hedrick is declairing that honoring the GPL on his  
ATA driver is honoring all things GPL'd--I don't share this view of Andre 
Hedrick's.

Dell **ALSO** distributes a derived work of the kernel modutils
resulting in a GPL'd executiable called "loader"  The ISO images that
Andre/Matt provide links to do not have the source code to this GPL'd
work.

> Might I suggest following up your unfounded accusations with a public
> apology.

Yes--I'm sorry for being so quick to believe Dell technical support's
statement that they wheren't providing or intending to provide any of the
source code at all.  I'm sorry for assuming if Dell was honoring the GPL,
they would have included a referrence to where to get the source code in
the README, instead there is no referrence to Dell-Boot-CD-RH9 in
boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz.  And I am sorry that Matt was pulled out of his
vacation to respond to the issue (since it appears no one else at Dell can
speak to why they continue to violate the GPL).

I will also apologize for my accusations being complettely unfounded when 
it is shown that they are complettely unfounded.  As I stated in the 
accusation, the code from modutils was provided in binary only form in 
boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz

Despite Andre Hedrick's declairing that "DELL has/had met its obligations 
to the GPL."  He has *NOT* shown that any one of the following is true:

- the complette source code to the GPL'd executiable "loader" was provided
as part of the time of distribution of boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz

- a written offer for the complette source code to the GPL'd executiable 
"loader" was provided at the time of distribution

- a written offer from a third party for the complette source code to the 
GPL'd executiable "loader" was provided at the time of distribution

- equivalent access to the source code to the GPL'd executiable "loader" 
from the same ftp site


I agree with you that only *ONE* of the clauses must be honored.  But if 
DELL is distributing a derived work of modutils in binary only form 
without honoring ANY of the above four conditions then is it unfounded to 
state that Dell is again violating the GPL?

Oh, and Andre Hedrick... if you want me to be "happy" about you burning 
"personal capital" to declair that "DELL has/had met its obligations to 
the GPL" then please follow your own advice and "get your facts first."  
Feel free to *PROVE* that DELL had honored **ALL** GPL obligations in 
regards to distributing boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz  Until someone does so, I 
will continue to promote the idea that Dell is continuing again on it's 
trend of violating the General Public License.