GPL Distribution Clauses?
2010-12-03 00:51:09 GMT
I noticed something which can cause confusion about the gpl distribution and would need to be clarified. This is also important for device resellers (In particular those who deal with android). I'll start off with stating that all android devices include a list of open gpl notices in the device. Although, sometimes this is outdated because the device manufacturer adds other components that are under the gpl... A short list of what is frequently used, but not included in the open source notices are Busybox ( /system/bin/busybox), gdbserver (/system/bin/gdbserver), and u-boot. There's frequent cases where anyone can download the firmware without any qualms. This here is where the problem starts. 1) If i download the firmware from their site, am i automatically entitled to the gpl source release? I know that for GPL v2 it's a bit tough to figure out, and as for GPL V3 it's as long as i have the binary. 2) If said firmware includes a full copy of the GPL license, can that be viewed as an valid Source offer in it's self. (Linux kernel should always be in the legal notices). 3) Is the source of the distribution in violation of the GPL for refusing a request for the source after one downloads the firmware. On a side note, there's a lot of places which have this particular problem. Most of the time the problem has it's origin being with a Chinese based company. I'll also make note that a few good examples of this are Zenithink, Witstech, and Smart devices.(Continue reading)