On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Rick Moen <r...@linuxmafia.com> wrote: and ext> [...] > The company selling the firmware does indeed bear the obligation to > comply with the licensing terms of the various codebases it ships that > were written by others, including the Linux kernel, > [...] > As a third party who is standing outside the commission of apparent > torts against some copyright owners of code within the 'firmware' image, > you have limited leverage, lacking standing for a copyright action. > [...] > I'm sure the above is not quite what you were hoping to hear, but I hope > it proves enlightening, nonetheless.
Rick: This is enlightening and well written! I guess other courses of action could include: - getting advice from the FSF [1]. - in the past, discussing on gpl-violations [2] would have been an option, but it looks mostly dormant nowadays and its mailing lists pages are 404. - or if one feels strongly about the topic, public shaming? [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.en.html [2] http://gpl-violations.org -- Cordially Philippe Ombredanne _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss