Hi, On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Joseph Heenan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Al, > > I can't quite follow everything here; please allow me to ask some question > to clarify what is going on. > > > On 04/02/2014 12:46, al wrote: >> >> >>> While I would prefer them just to have a public repo with the code in >>> it I think they are compliant. >> >> No, they don't: >> >> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.en.html >> >> If you think you see a violation of the GNU GPL, LGPL, AGPL, or FDL, the >> first thing you should do is double-check the facts: >> >> Does the distribution contain a copy of the License? >> >> No, it has not. > > Which distribution are you referring to - the distribution with the > hardware, or are there separate downloads available?
There are separate downloads available at <http://www.mikrotik.com/download>, and they do contain a link to the previously quoted license agreement at <http://www.mikrotik.com/downloadterms.html> (although in a very small, gray font, so easily overlooked - I'd guess this might not be legally binding in some countries, as you could easily agree to it without knowing you are "agreeing" to it). Note that the license text/agreement does not include the GPL itself (or other licenses) directly, it only links them to the same website - which then 404s for all licenses I tried. It also lumps all GPL versions and variations into one "GPL", so likely they are even misrepresenting the actual licenses for several of these packages, unless the (missing) gpl.html contains the different versions and states which ones apply to which packages. Same for "LGPL". So technically, no, they are indeed not included, at least on the website. No idea if the links are working on the device itself, but that would not invalidate the problem on the website itself. >> Does it clearly state which software is covered by the License? Does >> it say anything misleading, perhaps giving the impression that something is >> covered by the License when in fact it is not? >> >> No, it doesn't clearly. > > If there isn't copy of the GPL license, I'm not clear how there can be a > copy of the GPL license that doesn't clearly state was is covered by the > GPL? There is a list of Software packages with their appropriate licenses, but they also state that "The following list may or may not include all of the GNU/GPL software that is included in the distribution.". So for me it does not state clearly which software is covered by it, as it may be incomplete. >> Is a written offer for source code included with a distribution of >> just binaries? >> >> Not at all. > > Which distribution are you referring to? I guess the above also answers this one. >> Is the available source code complete, or is it designed for linking >> in other non-free modules? >> >> Is it designed for linking in ohter non-free modules. > > I seem to be confused here - you have actually somehow obtained source code, > and it is missing parts? Which parts are missing? > > Just to clarify, have you taken them up on the $45 offer to supply source > code on CD that Alexander's email included, or does this not seem to apply > to your router? I agree with this, currently there seems to be quite a bit of speculation on the contents of the "CD", without any hard facts. Jonas
