From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@genband.com>
Subject: Re: scsi target, likely GPL violation
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 19:57:14 -0600
Message-ID: <509B117A.6070708@genband.com>
References: <509A915B.30105@redhat.com> <CAPoiz9wzx_NmuA1ty-U28MGiYr7XKCbDn_e0ZLmz=pNDCqwqFw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAPoiz9wzx_NmuA1ty-U28MGiYr7XKCbDn_e0ZLmz=pNDCqwqFw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Jon Mason <jdmason@kudzu.us>
Cc: Andy Grover <agrover@redhat.com>, "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>, target-devel <target-devel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Marc Fleischmann <mwf@risingtidesystems.com>, Nicholas Bellinger <nab@risingtidesystems.com>
List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org

On 11/07/2012 07:02 PM, Jon Mason wrote:
> I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but if
> I understand the GPL correctly, RTS only needs to provide the relevant
> source to their customers upon request.

Not quite.

Assuming the GPL applies, and that they have modified the code, then 
they must either:

1) include the source with the distributed binary

or

2) include with the binary an offer to provide the source to *any* third 
party

Chris