On Sat, 31 Aug 2013 01:09:06 +0100, luke.leighton wrote in message <capweedykwxm+noaahuszqwdgbmmgguah6kddtsrupothxui...@mail.gmail.com>:
> 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 ...("they" being "end users" of said flash player and Microsoft fonts, debian merely distributes its own packaged script which automates the downloading of the said flash player and said Microsoft fonts in full compliance to their EULA contract terms)... > 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. > > > -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.
