Re: freebox possible GPL violation

[Emmanuel Fleury <fleury@cs.aau.dk>]

Pierre Michon wrote:
> 
>>I might have misunderstood but I think that if you buy the hardware you
>>cannot connect it to the DSLAM network anymore. So that only the boxes
>>they own are connected to the DSLAM.
> 
> Again have you any proof that there aren't any Linux firmware in the
> flash of the freebox ?

Helloooo !!! Have you proofs that they have ???

You're always assuming the worst from Free, this is really starting to
be annoying. Just stick to the FACTS and if you want to argue on
something, bring PROOFS !

And even if it was the case, you missed the point here, if they own the
Freebox their point is that they are using Linux for "internal use" only.

>>Are you sure this point has been clarified in court in the past ?
>>If not, I would bet on it (for the specific case of settop boxes).
> 
> For french law I don't know, but someone on gpl-violation this is true
> for de and au.

Nonsense, you are talking about cases of softwares which were sold to
customers with GPL code inside. This is no such case here.

>>I mentioned in another mail the case of a mobile phone network
>>infrastructure where the network nodes to which mobile phones are
>>connecting are running Linux. It seems to be an "internal use" (as it
>>never leak out of the company network) and yet providing a service to
>>customers.
> 
> No the freebox is more like a dvb box that is lended by a satellite
> provider and could do firmware update via satellite.
> 
> I don't know if there are similar case for dvb box.

You obviously need a brain, try to get one and come back after you
learned to use it.

Regards
-- 
Emmanuel Fleury

Shut up and hack !
  -- Theo de Raadt (OpenBSD Hackaton)