Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:16:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>
To: Fluke <fluke@gibson.mw.luc.edu>
cc: linux-poweredge@dell.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Dell vs. GPL
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0306280005000.29249-100000@gibson.mw.luc.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10306282112400.1116-100000@master.linux-ide.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@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/