On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Ralph Corderoy <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Eric, > >> MikeC84 of XDA has a public kernel available for download, > > It would be handy in cases like this to state the URL and the SHA1 or > similar digest of the download to put it on the public record. Others > on the list can then trivially repeat your action. > >> https://github.com/MikeC84/shooter-ics-crc-3.0.16-3a7b522/commit/ed274254b56cb9433f2b40abd52a1b83a45b8c5b#commitcomment-3569625 > > His latest reply at that URL includes "The latest version of my kernel > was compiled from my open bitbucket repo therefore there is no > violation".
unfortunately, that statement underlies a logical fallacy. assuming that someone *has* released a binary that is compiled with GPL software, the GPL license requires them to release [or make available in the ways described in the GPL license] precisely and exactly that version of the source - in full - and the tools - all of them - that were used to create that binary. if they fail to comply, they lose the right to distribute *all* versions of that software. so in this case, if there has been a GPL violation - and claiming "i don't yet have time, i'll do it later" is actually a reasonable statement, then he would lose the right to distribute the quotes open quotes repo as well. however, he's not *quite* at that stage yet, unless he's explicitly said "no". so, eric, what you have here is a situation where you now need to count the number of days from when you made the request. if that number goes beyond a "reasonable" amount, then you're entitled to remind him. if he fails to comply, *then* he is in violation of the GPLv2. "reasonable" is unfortunately not clearly defined in the GPLv2 license itself, and i am sure that you will find others who will be able to tell you under Copyright Law [in various countries] what a "reasonable" amount of time to comply with a Software License is. i believe however that it's also part of Copyright Law - because you've made the request, and he's now in danger of Criminal Copyright Infringment - that he now has to demonstrate that he is making absolutely every reasonable effort to comply with the request for Copyright compliance. if it turns out in a court of law that he has *not* spent every single available free moment making an effort to comply since the moment that you notified him, then that will not go down very well. so, in that regard, a blanket statement "when i post you can have it" could potentially be regarded as being deliberately obstructive. my advice is that you should make efforts to establish if it is his intent to comply, i.e. does he understand his obligations. you will soon establish if he is either genuinely and sincerely busy, or if he is being deliberately obstructive and has absolutely no intention of complying with Copyright Law. l.
