Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161163AbVLXD00 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:26:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161162AbVLXD00 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:26:26 -0500 Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:20453 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161160AbVLXD0Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Dec 2005 22:26:25 -0500 Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 03:25:40 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier To: Horst von Brand Cc: Scott Mansfield , Bryan Henderson , Ben Slusky , "Robert W. Fuller" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, LKML Kernel , Kyle Moffett , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: blatant GPL violation of ext2 and reiserfs filesystem drivers Message-ID: <20051224032540.GA3698@mail.shareable.org> References: <43AC5B14.2090509@mac.com> <200512240148.jBO1mlqx022718@quelen.inf.utfsm.cl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200512240148.jBO1mlqx022718@quelen.inf.utfsm.cl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1850 Lines: 45 Horst von Brand wrote: > > >>Developer replies that the source code will be provided > > >>only to paying customers: > > > > Not really. Developer does make the bizarre statement that "paid > > > customers" are entitled to source code, > > Read the GPL: You get the binary, you are entitled to the source. You have > no binary, wellll... > > Sure, you can get the binary (legally!) from somebody else, and then you > are entitled to source. If in the last paragraph mean "then you are entitled to the source [from Developer]", then that is not correct. You are entitled to the source from the person who gave you the binary. You are also only entitled to it in ways enumerated by the GPL - i.e. at the same time as you receive the binary, or if the person giving the binary does not provide the source at the same time, in the form of a 3 year written offer to provide it later from that person. If you receive a binary from an intermediate 3rd party, you have no entitlement to get the source from _their_ supplier. Only from the 3rd party. If the 3rd party don't supply you with source, even if _they_ can't because they don't have it, then _they_ are in breach of the GPL when they give you the binary. Of course, the upstream Developer could give you the source anyway. But they aren't required to do that, if they aren't providing the binary. All that said, isn't this thread a result of the upstream Developer (i.e. not a 3rd party) providing binaries for free, and then not providing source to the people who get those free binaries, despite saying they will? That is not on. -- Jamie - 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/