Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Scripsit sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > they may have released it under the GPL, but there's a strong case for > > arguing that they're in violation of their own licensing terms for not > > providing the source code to the firmware blobs. > > The copyright holder cannot logically be in violation of his own > licensing terms. He does not need a license at all to distribute his > own work, thus there is nothing for *him* to violate.
Right. In cases like this one, what has happened is that the copyright holder has simply failed to make legal distribution possible, by saying "you must distribute complete source" and then failing to provide it. So the only way to comply with the license in such a case is simply to do no distribution at all. Thomas
