Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265548AbTF2EFU (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:05:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265551AbTF2EFU (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:05:20 -0400 Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:56074 "EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265548AbTF2EFN (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:05:13 -0400 Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:16:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Andre Hedrick To: Fluke cc: linux-poweredge@dell.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Dell vs. GPL In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2943 Lines: 71 First since it effects ATA it is my issue for the most part. You have no stake or issue to pursue GPL violations if there are any. Three, until you have copyright status, you have not right to invoke GPL unless you are a customer of Dell, and are not bound by a contract to Dell. So get your facts first. If there is a GPL issue with Dell and it involves my work, my lawyers will contact Dell. Cheers and have a good day. Andre Hedrick LAD Storage Consulting Group On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Fluke wrote: > Dell is providing binary only derived works of the Linux kernel and the > modutils package at ftp://ftp.dell.com/fixes/boot-floppy-rh9.tar.gz > > The GPL appears to provide four terms under section 3 that Dell may > legally redistribute these works: > > - In regards to GPL 3a, Dell does *NOT* provide the source code as part of > the tar.gz > - In regards to GPL 3b, Dell does *NOT* provide a written offer as part of > the tar.gz > - In regards to GPL 3c, Dell does *NOT* provide information regarding an > offer to the source code as part of the tar.gz > - Lastly, Dell does *NOT* provide equivalent access to the source code > from the same ftp site > > I contacted Dell support and recieved confirmation that Dell does not > intend to provide the source code to these binary works. He explained > that all Dell fixes are licensed by Dell from third parties for use by > Dell customers in binary only form and "Dell does not intend the fixes to > be open source products." > > If they don't want to honor the GPL with their fixes, why do they > continue to claim to take Linux seriously and why does RedHat continue to > back them? > > This is not the first time I have run into Dell trying to mislead > customers in regards to open source. Dell continues to distribute their > ESM kernel module under an "open_src" directory and a license which > redistricts use, modification and redistribution. I'm not sure how it > could ever qualify as an OSI approved license but it is clear that Dell is > trying to pass it off as such. > > I have also tried to contact RedHat activities but based on the responce > that I got from Mark Webbink, I don't think RedHat is prepaired to do > anything about it. > > Is the GPL as it applies to the kernel intended to be a legal set of > requirements or simply a set of optional guidelines like Dell/RedHat seems > to be treating it? > > Thanks > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/