Bruce Perens wrote: > it may be that most uses of GPL defeat the various first-sale and exhaustion > doctrines because there is not in general a sale by the copyright holder, > only by subsequent conveyors of embedded versions of the software who do not > hold copyright rights. > Conveyance is only through the license, without any direct monetary > compensation.
One might argue resale of a device with embedded GPL software is propagation in GPLv3 terms, and not conveyance. Propagation does not require a license and does not trigger obligations to provide source code. If this is the indeed the case, then the obligation to provide source rests with the last entity in the distribution chain to perform a conveyance (which might be as far back as when the OEM sold the nav system to the car manufacturer). Cars are an interesting problem in GPL compliance because of their long service lifetimes (12-13 years on average in the US and growing longer), an active resale market, and the obligation of the manufacturer to perform recalls for safety-critical flaws. And just for fun, let's also mention that in the US cars are frequently leased rather than sold. If the owner of the car (as opposed to the driver) is Audi Finance Corp. of America, to whom is the GPL source for these Novero units actually owed? Interesting questions, and a discussion very much worth having with the community. cheers Andy Wilson Intel open source technology center
