The software contained on the router when sold appears to be irrelevant for this particular case, and they do appear to provide GPL license information at least on their PDF manuals, although they often provide these whether or not the routers actually contain GPL code. Providing for download on their website the full software image(often not the same as provided on the router itself) appears to be the point of contention and in my reading of the GPL they are obligated to provide GPL source of those images for 3 years of distribution from their website as well. So even if the make a router EOL if they leave the firmware images up they still have to comply with the GPL in regards to those right? They did seem to have GPL notices posted more or less properly but when asked for the source to those downloads they pulled the images and refused source for a number of them using EOL as justification. Oddly enough they still appear to be working on getting source to the first one I contested.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Ian Stirling <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 10/21/2013 09:57 PM, James Hilliard wrote: > > They are attempting to use the fact that these routers are EOL and not > being sold anymore as some sort of GPL exception but they have provided > firmware for these routers directly from their website up until a few days > ago. > > > On a strictly technical reading of the license. > > *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, * * > * *c)** Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to > distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for > noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object > code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b > above.) * > c) of course doesn't apply, as it's noncommercial. > > If they did not accompany it with source, and I don't think anyones > arguing that - they could only be in compliance if there was actually a > written offer in the box. > > If there was - then they are only required to keep the router source up > for 3 years. > > If there was not - then they are not required to post source in any form, > as it does not affect the license, because linux was never licenced. > > You cannot technically comply with GPLv2 after the fact - you need to > either supply the source, or a written offer. You cannot after-the-fact > 'accompany it with' either a written offer or source code. > > Of course - posting the source may affect hypothetical damages from their > copyright violations. > > (Linksys has no rights to distribute linux in the above cases, but the > users are licensed separately by clause 6.) >
