is this GPL v2 violation - konica-minolta or EFI ?

is this GPL v2 violation - konica-minolta or EFI ?

[art]

is this GPL v2 violation - konica-minolta or EFI ?

http://www.konicaminolta.us
http://www.efi.com/

product: option for konica-minolta bizhub c351
IC-402 Embedded Fiery Print Controller

operating system:
Linux

product: EFI - Fiery System 6e system 6e X3e CONTROLLER SOLUTIONS

operating system:
Linux

product: EFI - PrintMe

operating system:
Linux

<< NO SOURCE CODE FOR LINUX >> on media/web

xboom

Re: is this GPL v2 violation - konica-minolta or EFI ?

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, art wrote:
>
> is this GPL v2 violation - konica-minolta or EFI ?
> 
> http://www.konicaminolta.us
> http://www.efi.com/
> 
> product: option for konica-minolta bizhub c351
> IC-402 Embedded Fiery Print Controller
> 
> product: EFI - Fiery System 6e system 6e X3e CONTROLLER SOLUTIONS
> 
> product: EFI - PrintMe

Probably not, but it's hard to tell. 

When they sell you the system, they have to tell you how to get sources if 
those things run Linux, but they don't actually have to make the sources 
available otherwise.

(I didn't look the things up, but it's also pretty unlikely that they'd 
have a custom kernel on them. I don't see why they should - at least the 
IC-402 thing seems to be basically just an embedded PC. So I suspect they 
have little incentive to keep anything secret).

		Linus

Re: is this GPL v2 violation - konica-minolta or EFI ?

[Jon Masters]

On 4/19/06, art <art@usfltd.com> wrote:

> is this GPL v2 violation - konica-minolta or EFI ?

> << NO SOURCE CODE FOR LINUX >> on media/web

Did you:

a). Buy the product.
b). Ask them for the source?

Jon.

Re: is this GPL v2 violation - konica-minolta or EFI ?

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 09:52 +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
> On 4/19/06, art <art@usfltd.com> wrote:
> 
> > is this GPL v2 violation - konica-minolta or EFI ?
> 
> > << NO SOURCE CODE FOR LINUX >> on media/web
> 
> Did you:
> 
> a). Buy the product.
> b). Ask them for the source?

it's not quite as simple. You can't know if it's a gpl violation,
because they could have shipped the source to the people who bought it.
(for embedded stuff with a disk on it, like most printer controllers,
it's easy to just put the source on that disk with the binary and
satisfy the gpl)

If they did not ship the source they need to ship a written offer that
is valid for *everyone* not just the people they gave the binary to.

Re: is this GPL v2 violation - konica-minolta or EFI ?

[Jon Masters]

On 4/19/06, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 09:52 +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
> > On 4/19/06, art <art@usfltd.com> wrote:
> >
> > > is this GPL v2 violation - konica-minolta or EFI ?
> >
> > > << NO SOURCE CODE FOR LINUX >> on media/web
> >
> > Did you:
> >
> > a). Buy the product.
> > b). Ask them for the source?
>
> it's not quite as simple.

Who's your response for? me or the original poster? I know the issues,
I'm just trying to get him to say whether he bought it and to
determine some of the necessary background :-)

Jon.

Re: is this GPL v2 violation - konica-minolta or EFI ?

[art]

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Jon Masters" <jonathan@jonmasters.org>
Date:  Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:52:36 +0100

>On 4/19/06, art <art@usfltd.com> wrote:
>
>> is this GPL v2 violation - konica-minolta or EFI ?
>
>> << NO SOURCE CODE FOR LINUX >> on media/web
>
>Did you:
>
>a). Buy the product.
>b). Ask them for the source?
>
>Jon.
>

i have offer to buy the product - bizhub c351 with

product: option for konica-minolta bizhub c351
IC-402 Embedded Fiery Print Controller

operating system:
Linux

i call them to check if they will include source code
or offer me other option like in COPYING file

".......
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form with such
    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
......"

xboom