> On Sat, 17 Aug 2013, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: >> ... 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. [Case] (a) the offer for source is missing .... (a) is >> copyright infringement, since it violates GPL.
Charlie Brady wrote at 22:51 (EDT) on Saturday: > That "offer" clause has always worried me. Allowing for an offer for source rather than accompanying distribution alongside binaries has always been a trade-off, originally designed in GPLv1 and GPLv2 for cases where media was too small to include source and binary, thus making inclusion of GPL'd software cost-prohibitive otherwise. That's sometimes still true on small devices. Some have argued we've "reached the point" where there's no reason to allow an offer option anymore (since SD cards are huge), but the (reasonable) counter-argument is that margins are thin in electronics sales, and a difference in 4GB SD card vs an 8GB one might cross the line of profitability. Plus, CCS releases are often huge these days for a large, complex system. I've seen 7GB ones at times! > Is there anything to say that the offer actually has to be honoured? Failure to honor an offer that's made is copyright infringement, since it violates GPL. The offer has to be "valid" -- GPL says that explicitly. The problem we have these days, admittedly, is that savvy violators just paste invalid offers everywhere as a way to thwart GPL enforcement efforts. Years ago, when I enforced GPL, I didn't bother to test offers; I assumed they were valid. These days, most enforcement matters aren't "no-source-nor-offer" (the most common violation until circa 2005), but "offer-fail" (the current most common violation). This adds an extra step in the enforcement triage process, which is why I urge everyone to *test* every offer for source you encounter and make sure what you get is CCS. -- -- bkuhn
