[clug] Fwd: [LINK] Software Freedom Law Center files first US GPL
infringement suit
Alex Satrapa
grail at goldweb.com.au
Mon Sep 24 06:07:51 GMT 2007
On 24/09/2007, at 15:26 , Michael Cohen wrote:
> Busybox will have to prove that the defendant actually
> extended busybox itself, and even then only those modifications are
> releasable under gpl.
The GPL states that the distributor must make the source available
when asked.
I think there was some case about a Linux distribution (Mepis) which
got into some trouble because it was based entirely upon some other
distribution (Debian?), and pointed people at the original
distribution for the source[1].
So people operating under the mistaken assumption that "the source is
available somewhere" while distributing (even a pristine version of)
a program are actually violating the intent of the GPL which is that
the end user must be able to get the source for the exact version of
a program that they are using, from the exact same people they got
the binary version from. I understand that in GPL3, this intent is
spelt out explicitly.
I am not a lawyer, but don't believe that - in order to prove
violation of the licence - the Busybox folks would need to show
anything more than (a) the offender distributes a version of busybox
in binary form, and (b) the offender does not provide the source code
for that version of busybox when asked.
Alex
[1] http://www.linux.com/articles/55285
More information about the linux
mailing list