From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753369AbYEEEkc (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 00:40:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751379AbYEEEkY (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 00:40:24 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:41239 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751228AbYEEEkY (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 00:40:24 -0400 Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 21:40:17 -0700 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Robert Kelly III Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, legal@narasimha.gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: Possible GPL violation in Linux-based IPTV set top box Message-ID: <20080504214017.2de2d220@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <200805042347.26445.bluethegrappler@gmail.com> References: <200805042347.26445.bluethegrappler@gmail.com> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.3.1 (GTK+ 2.12.9; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 4 May 2008 23:47:24 -0400 Robert Kelly III wrote: > The company I work for, SkyAngel, has recently swapped from satelite > broadcast to IPTV. The set top box we are using runs Linux according > to NeuLion, our partner company who supplies the STB. When we > distribute the set top boxes, however, there is no disclaimer of > warranty, copy of the GPL, offer for source code, or any mention of > Linux as far as I can find. Isn't this a violation of the GPL and > your copyright? I have raised concerns about the situation, but > everyone here seems convinced it is somehow ok. > > What should be done about this? I am not sure who would be > responsible as it seems NeuLion or some associate makes the STB and > takes care of the software, but we sell it to our customers. Is there > any possible way I might have missed that this could actually be > permissible? you should ask a lawyer, not here; your question is offtopic for this list... there's no lawyers here. Or if that's a really big step, you could ask Harald Welte or the Software Freedom Law Center; both have a lot of experience with this sort of thing.