Robinson Tryon wrote at 19:54 (EDT) on Thursday: > Assuming your reading of GPLv2, how would one verify compliance with > the license without having a built binary B + signature(B) that can > actually run on a piece of hardware H? ... > I guess one could request 3rd party verification of compliance, but > that could be rather pricey. I wonder if such a cost would rest on the > distributor, or upon the party seeking to verify compliance (e.g. a > copyright holder).
As I said in an post on another thread yesterday, compliance is an affirmative defense that the violator much show, in their effort to prove their claim that they didn't infringe copyright. So, if we (as copyright holders or their representatives) can't be sure that something is compliant based on what's been given, that's the violators' problem, not ours. In practice, though, I work really hard to give detailed reports to violators about why their CCS is inadequate because, like always, I *want* them to comply and keep using and incorporating Free Software into their products (provided they do so in compliance with all relevant Open Source and Free Software licenses ;). -- -- bkuhn
