Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265636AbTF2L3f (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jun 2003 07:29:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265637AbTF2L3f (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jun 2003 07:29:35 -0400 Received: from gibson.mw.luc.edu ([147.126.62.56]:18841 "EHLO gibson.mw.luc.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265636AbTF2L3e (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jun 2003 07:29:34 -0400 Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 06:49:44 -0500 (CDT) From: Fluke To: Andre Hedrick Cc: linux-poweredge@dell.com, 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: 2692 Lines: 50 On Sat, 28 Jun 2003, Andre Hedrick wrote: > 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. Ok. Here is my facts: - binary code resulting from the GPL work "modutils" was redistributed without the source code or written offer of source code - binary code resulting from the Linux kernel GPL work "knfs" was redistributed without the source code or written offer of source code - binary code resulting from the Linux kernel GPL work "usb-storage" was redistributed without the source code or written offer of source code - binary code resulting from the Linux kernel GPL work "ext2fs" was redistributed without the source code or written offer of source code - binary code resulting from the Linux kernel GPL work "initrd" was redistributed without the source code or written offer of source code - binary code resulting from .... I fail to see how this only violates the copyright on ATA unless your "facts" include the myth that the only source code that needs to be provided is the portion changed. The actual wording of the GPL requires a minimum of passing along a written offer for the *complette* source code for all work redistributed. I would have accepted a README that stated that they provided a patch *and* equivalent access to the rest of the source code was available at ftp://ftp.dell.com/... but there is no equivalent access to the complette source code (even across multiple files) on Dell's ftp site. Since this is non-commerical redistribution, I would have accepted a README that stated they provide a patch *and* a pointer to RedHat's SRPM. But there is *NO* written offer to the complette source code. This redistribution appears to violate the license terms on more than just ATA including my contributions, since it is more than just ATA which is covered by the GPL and provided in binary only form without a written offer of source code. This includes my contributions to ide-cdrom of which I never signed copyright control over to anyone else. And as long as we are now taken to giving flippant advice, before you respond again you might want to "get your facts first." Or should I say get your facts *straight* first. - 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/