| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Monsoon Multimedia gives in on GPLMonsoon Multimedia gives in on GPLPosted Sep 24, 2007 22:49 UTC (Mon) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270)In reply to: Monsoon Multimedia gives in on GPL by xtifr Parent article: Monsoon Multimedia gives in on GPL
Yes. If I recall the language correctly, the license does require that the offer to provide the source must "accompany" the binaries, which I would read as requiring the offer to be made simultaneously with delivery of the product containing the binaries.
I certainly didn't intend to defend Monsoon Multimedia or claim that what they did was OK. Assuming they didn't accompany the product with such an offer, they would have been non-compliant and, under the terms of GPLv2, that would have automatically terminated their rights under the license.
Note, though, that GPLv2 says nothing about how such rights may be reestablished. I think you could argue [IANAL] that a subsequent compliant distribution would be permitted by the license, since it would be a new application of the license. Definitely room for lawyering around that. Given the aims of the GPL, it's arguably desirable that previous offenders be able to use the license if they adopt compliant practices...
(Log in to post comments)
Monsoon Multimedia gives in on GPL Posted Sep 26, 2007 1:46 UTC (Wed) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AnonFTPAndSendSo...
Monsoon Multimedia gives in on GPL Posted Sep 26, 2007 15:23 UTC (Wed) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link] Could you clarify what you intended the link to show? The quoted part of the GNU FAQ is just about cases where the binaries are distributed by FTP; in this case the binaries were distributed embedded in a device. More important, I believe it's an FAQ item specific to GPLv3 - GPLv2 (which I believe is the relevant license for BusyBox) had somewhat looser rules (rules that _allowed_ handling source distribution this way, but did not require it; GPLv3 requires it).
Monsoon Multimedia gives in on GPL Posted Sep 26, 2007 18:04 UTC (Wed) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702) [Link] Just that in some cases the option of the written offer is not really available (because a claim in a web site might not qualify a legally binding written offer, I suppose), and since that's how most GPLed software is distributed, I guess that means that the option of the written offer is the exception rather than the rule. So it's kind of easy to forget that this option exists, and not everyone who does remember it exists also knows of cases in which it is not available. Or something along these lines. It is indeed a distraction from the main discussion.
|
|
||||||||||||