Kenneth Gonsalves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > if MTNL has not modified the code in the modem, it is under no > obligation to provide the source or the GPL text
They have. But that's wandering off the original point. The point is that MTNL is obliged to provide the GPL licence and access to the source (if not the source itself) when they distribute the modem. This is true even if they have not modified the source. [If the GPL licence and access to the source was missing when it reached MTNL, then I'd expect MTNL to be obliged to stop providing the modems, or else they're helping the violators - but that is a separate case, and the liabilities they have would really have to be figured out by looking at the agreement they had with Starcom. And in practice, of course, by the time anything happens in the Indian justice system we will all probably be past caring. Nonetheless, the truth remains that MTNL has obligations to the GPL, and I expect would (eventually, after many wearying years) incur a penalty for neglecting them if dragged to court on this] PJ _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Next Event: http://freed.in - September 28-29, 2007 Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
