Armijn Hemel wrote at 18:18 (EDT) on Friday: > So the question is first whether or not there actually is GPL code > inside. For this you would need access to the binaries that are > shipped in the car.
.... or getting a bootscreen or other diagnostic output that shows it's clearly a GPL'd program running (such as Linux boot messages). Or, recognizing functionality that is known to correspond to GPL'd software. Or, dozens of other ways that would clearly pass the USA's Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 requirement that give us "likely ... evidentiary support" of copyright infringement. (See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_11 ) > On 08/17/2013 03:06 AM, Charlie Brady wrote: >> I think the screen which says there is GPL code is prima facie >> evidence that there *is* GPL code. Certainly if they present you with a copy of GPL, some binaries, and no offer for source code, you can and should ask why. Something has to be wrong. Either (a) the offer for source is missing, (b) the text of the GPL is presented unnecessarily. (b) is benign but confusing and we should ask them to correct it. (a) is copyright infringement, since it violates GPL. Armijn Hemel wrote at 01:20 (EDT): > I know of plenty of vendors that have boiler plate manuals/language > that has a GPL statement, without any GPL code present in the system > (there was a thread about this on the other list a week or so ago). It depends on what the "GPL statement" says. If it's an offer for source, they have to honor the offer. Their answer to the offer can be: "Oops, there was, in fact, no GPL'd software in that product we gave you. We made that offer in error." But, that'd be a dangerous statement for them to make if it's wrong, though, as it digs their violation hole deeper. -- -- bkuhn
