https://www.olimex.com/forum/index.php?topic=1776.msg8127#msg8127
tsvetan, hi, i note that you've replied on the forum, mentioning that there is code which "contains GPL violations" - this is incorrect. the GPL violations are being committed by you, and your company, as they are also being committed by anyone else who distributes binaries compiled from GPL source without providing the full source code and full tool chain. if you were *only* providing a link to the source code (which happens to also include a proprietary binary-only NAND driver) you would not be violating the GPL. if people then downloaded that source code themselves - as well as downloading the proprietary binary-only NAND driver - and compiled it up and made personal use of it and DID NOT DISTRIBUTE IT, they would NOT be violating the GPL. the clauses in the GPL which you're running into only come into play on DISTRIBUTION, which is unfortunately what your company is doing. now, i had not checked earlier (i received a report that someone had downloaded the binaries) but checking the links now, i see you're actually linking to images hosted on docs.google.com. this is actually quite clever - it means you're not actually hosting the files yourself... but you're still responsible for them: you've used google's service as a means and method of "distribution". what that means is that by continuing to distribute those binaries without complying with the software license, you've actually used someone *else's* service - a rather big company which has quite a few people on this list who work for that company - whilst your own company is now in Copyright violation. would you care to remove those files (and the links) yourself, or would you prefer that people help you out by clicking the "report abuse" and then clicking the "Report Copyright Violation" buttons? you *must* be more careful with this stuff, tsvetan. it's fine to create an automated script which downloads the mixed GPL + proprietary binaries and compiles or assembles it: this is what's done for example with the debian packaging for flash player, and with mstruetypefonts. they grab the proprietary [non-free] parts using wget and then go from there. now if your _customers_ decide to distribute those mixed and license-incompatible binaries, having built them for themselves - even using automated scripts that _you_ provided - that's NOT YOUR PROBLEM, it's theirs. ideally you should warn them, but you'd be in the clear. does this help explain the situation to you, at all? l.
