In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
> >
> > <http://opensource.actiontec.com/>
>
> Actiontec wasn't a defendant. Verizon was a defendant.
>
> After the case ends: Defendant is still in violation of the GPL.
>
> After the case ends: Defendant still doesn't make GPL'd sources
> available.
The GPL requirement is:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms
of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the
following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost
of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
[Third option deleted as it is only relevant to noncommercial
distribution]
I don't see how you can tell if they are satisfying 3(b) or not without
actually obtaining one of the routers from Verizon and seeing if it is
accompanied with a written offer to provide the source. If it is, there
is nothing that says that if they choose to distribute by the web, it
has to be from a verizon.com web site.
--
--Tim Smith
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
