On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:26 AM, James Hilliard <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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. > They're not doing anything fishy here, really, IMHO. And it gets back down into the nitty gritty of distribution. The written offer is good for three years from the last time they distributed it. If it was not, then the three years would be meaningless, as it would turn into an indefinite requirement so long as *ANYONE ANYWHERE* downloaded it from ANYPLACE IT MIGHT EXIST at least one every three years. They made the offer per the GPL, and need to ensure it is available for three years from the date of that original offer. -- -- Thomas
