They did not make the source code available for download and when asked for it they removed the binary downloads rather than live up to their obligations to provide the source. Their website has a written offer for 3 years from date of distribution, and I would think providing a firmware bin for download directly would constitute distribution. Note that the firmware bins are often completely different(newer) builds than those that were distributed with the associated hardware so I would think that any GPL obligations would have no relation to the hardware itself but rather the actual software provided for download.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Neil Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 22 Oct 2013, at 12:26, James Hilliard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 > > > I am not sure that this is necessarily the case: did they also make the > source code to these images available for download? > > If so, is this parallel provision closer to accompanying the firmware with > the source code (3(a)) than making a written offer (3(b))? > > > Kind regards > > > Neil > > __________ > > Neil Brown > [email protected] | http://neilzone.co.uk > > > >
