Re: possible GPL violation by Free

[Sam Hocevar <sam@zoy.org>]

On Sun, Oct 10, 2004, Rik van Riel wrote:

> >    To carefully verify this, you need to have a Freebox user ask
> > Free for the Linux source code. No one else is entitled to do it.
> 
> This is some serious misinformation, that needs to be corrected.
> 
> Please take a look at your copy of the GPL, in particular section 3.
> It states that the distributor of the software has 3 options, the
> third one only for non-profit distribution, so not applicable here.
> This leaves Free with 2 options:
> 
> 1) distribute the source together with the binaries, which they
>    do not appear to be doing
> 
> 2) distribute the source with an offer, for ANY 3rd party, to
>    get the source code on request (they don't appear to be doing
>    this either)

   I know the GPL and I know they don't appear to be doing any of these
two things. However it might be hidden in some obscure agreement between
Free and the user, renounced upon in such an agreement (which would
violate the GPL, like QuakeLives did) or indeed not be there at all. And
the only people who can verify this are the Freebox users.

> In addition to this, I find the reasoning that "people rent the
> box, so we don't sell the software" to be very suspicious.  Even
> if the boxes are only rented, the software on them is still being
> distributed!

   As stated in my previous email, I agree with you on this. Renting is
distributing.

-- 
Sam.