Netfilter gets a GPL-enforcement injunction [LWN.net]

Netfilter gets a GPL-enforcement injunction

Posted Apr 16, 2004 2:43 UTC (Fri) by mbp (guest, #2737)
In reply to: Netfilter gets a GPL-enforcement injunction by QuisUtDeus
Parent article: Netfilter gets a GPL-enforcement injunction

How can you think shipping a binary of the software is *not* distribution? Whether it is shipped on CD-ROM or a flash ROM, it's still being distributed.

If HP sells Linux pre-installed on a computer, are they expected to distribute the source as well? Maybe they do on CDs. If the installation CDs are included, and they contain the source, then that would be the case, but if they left out the source CDs thinking they weren't a big deal, would people be harassing them the way the embedded Linux device companies are being harassed?

Yes, if you get a computer from HP with Linux (or any GPL'd software) on it, you will get a CD of the source. If you don't, complain to HP and you will get it, and probably an apology as well.

Why do you call it "harassment" when somebody enforces their legal copyrights? I am pretty sure that the netfilter team were not less reasonable and patient about it than e.g. Microsoft would be if somebody were shipping PCs with pirated copies of Windows.

I just don't see the connection between selling pre-fitted hardware packages with Linux in them to a limited group of clients and making the source code available to everyone, even those that didn't buy the hardware package.

They are not required to provide source to people who didn't buy the hardware. Read the GPL.

If I help someone maintain a system with Linux on it and write custom scripts and build customized kernel configurations or maybe custom kernel modules, am I expected to provide the world all the source needed to recreate that custom system?

No, because those things do not create a derived work. Read the GPL. However, if you modified the kernel or a GPL'd module, then yes, you would need to give the source to your customer.

If vendors are harassed too much by Linux people, they may develop hard feelings and stop helping as much as do (or don't) now.

So you're saying, if I object to people infringing my copyright, they might not do it in future. That sounds pretty good to me.

Sitecom are welcome to use GPL'd software, as long as they obey the law. Is that too much to ask?

(Log in to post comments)

Netfilter gets a GPL-enforcement injunction

Posted Apr 16, 2004 11:06 UTC (Fri) by tgb (guest, #745) [Link]

You said:

They are not required to provide source to people who didn't buy the hardware. Read the GPL.

Section 3 (b) of the GPL states:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

...

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

So, in fact, you do have to give the code to anyone who asks for it.

Consult the GPL FAQ

Posted Apr 16, 2004 11:44 UTC (Fri) by dwalters (guest, #4207) [Link]

> So, in fact, you do have to give the code to anyone who asks for it.

See the official GPL FAQ on this subject here. It says that "Valid for any third party" means that anyone who has the offer is entitled to take you up on it. IANAL, but I think this means that only those in possession of the copy (and therefore also the written offer) are entitled to ask for the source code.

This requirement only holds if you did not ship the source code with the product. The reason for this requirement, by the way, is so that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer. The GPL FAQ puts it like this: "The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you."

I recommend everyone who isn't a lawyer, but who has any dealings with the GPL, to read the FAQ in full. If you think you already know it all, I challenge you to take the official GPL quiz here.

Netfilter gets a GPL-enforcement injunction

Posted Apr 16, 2004 11:57 UTC (Fri) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]

Contrariwise, GPL says 'provided that you also do _one_ of the following:'

You may choose to redistribute under the term of alternative 3a) instead.

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;

For example, by bundling a source CD-ROM together with the hardware.
Given that most hardware come already with a CD-ROM, this is not a huge
burden.

Netfilter gets a GPL-enforcement injunction

Posted Apr 16, 2004 23:35 UTC (Fri) by mbp (guest, #2737) [Link]

You are not *required* to give the source to anyone who asks for it, because you can avoid that obligation by giving source directly to people who get the binaries.

Note that clause 3 says "do *one* of the following" things.