Most Android Tablets Fail At GPL Compliance

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Most Android Tablets Fail At GPL Compliance

Posted by timothy on Thursday December 30, 2010 @07:17PM from the hey-man-those-are-just-like-rules dept.

polar_bear` writes "Red Hat's Matthew Garrett has been checking to see who's naughty and nice. Most Android tablet vendors? Naughty, naughty, naughty, when it comes to GPL compliance. In the current crop of Android tablets, most of the vendors flout the GPL and fail to ship source."

198 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

copyfree.org by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 19:20 · Score: 0

Subject says it all.
1. Re:copyfree.org by binarylarry · 2010-12-30 20:24 · Score: 1
  
  Don't you mean GNU/Copyfree!??
  And there's no way I'm going to be using yet another term for free like "gratis," "libre," and "elfreeo"
  Fuck CFFLOSS
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
2. Re:copyfree.org by thomasdz · 2010-12-31 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  "elfreeo" only applies to binaries in ELF format. Good old a.out format is still "gratis"
  
  --
  Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
lucky by chibiace · 2010-12-30 19:20 · Score: 1

since xmas is finished for this year they have all of 2011 to atone for their mistakes and get on the good list

--
he who controls the spice controls the universe
No great surprise.. by Dogers · 2010-12-30 19:23 · Score: 2

Big name companies provide it (notable exception being Creative, but then they've not always been so hot at this anyway), small unknown Chinese companies don't.
I'm surprised that Viewsonic only provides the source for 1 of its three tablets though.

--
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
1. Re:No great surprise.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-12-30 19:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The area that surprises me is the 'devices produced by small unknown Chinese companies; but rebadged and sold by large American/Japanese/etc. ones' niche.
  
  Given the number of obscure OEMs toiling away on designs based on what appear to be the same set of chipsets, you would expect that a large reseller would have its choice of OEMs, and strong ability to dictate terms. Further, you would expect that the respective legal departments of these re-badgers would absolutely flip out at the idea of incurring substantial risk of copyright infringement risk.
  
  The odds that Sylvania actually produced the hardware being marketed under their name are not huge; but Sylvania is a US-market brand of a pretty big Japanese electronics outfit. If anybody were to sue them about it, there could be serious money on the table.
  
  Coby Electronics Corporation, while it isn't exactly a luxury brand(seen by name in places like CVS pharmacy's electronics aisle, does some OEM work for Radio Shack), is a company with nontrivial size and US presence. Were I their lawyer, I'd be turning a cool shade of purple at the amount of liability we were racking up to score some tiny margins on skeezy wannabe android tablets to be sold to suckers at CVS.
  
  While FOSS guys tend to be nice about it, the penalties in the US for copyright infringement are downright draconian, and that niceness is wholly optional.
2. Re:No great surprise.. by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2010-12-30 20:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  these re-badgers would absolutely flip out at the idea of incurring substantial risk of copyright infringement risk.
  You need money to sue someone. FOSS idealists have none, and big companies with vested interest in FOSS software that could afford the legal costs know better than to hurt their own kind. That's why everybody and their dogs trample on the GPL with zero fear of legal actions.
  
  --
  "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
3. Re:No great surprise.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-12-30 20:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I suspect, percentage wise, it is fairly safe; but more than a few well-known names have been bitten for noncompliance with respect to busybox utilities... It's hardly a certainty, I'm just surprised that, given the likely bargaining power of the re-badger vs. the random throwaway OEM, that legal is signing off on even modest risk.
4. Re:No great surprise.. by Rakishi · 2010-12-30 20:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Hardly bitten, more like they got a mildly dirty look from a random stranger. Have there been any settlements or awards that were more than a slap on the wrist of the company? Any that in any way impacted their bottom line in even the smallest way?
5. Re:No great surprise.. by icebike · 2010-12-30 20:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  For most, simply coming into compliance is all they are ever asked to do in court.
  Some busybox (etc) providers drag their heels on even that, but most simply hang it on their website in some obscure place and call it a day. Most of these devices are obsolete before anyone notices the missing source code.
  Its not hard to comply, its just that Joe Purchasing Agent has no clue he is supposed to do so when he buys a cheesy tablet from an OEM and changes nothing but the label on the back.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
6. Re:No great surprise.. by dido · 2010-12-30 21:24 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Ask Eben Moglen, chief legal counsel for the Free Software Foundation, how the GPL has been enforced all these years.
  
  In approximately a decade of enforcing the GPL, I have never insisted on payment of damages to the Foundation for violation of the license, and I have rarely required public admission of wrongdoing. Our position has always been that compliance with the license, and security for future good behavior, are the most important goals. We have done everything to make it easy for violators to comply, and we have offered oblivion with respect to past faults.
  
  Enforcing the GPL, for the Free Software Foundation anyway, has never been about punishing the violators, as it tends to be with other copyright-related litigation, but more about getting people to comply with the license. In another speech, Moglen explains why there has never been a court test of the GPL, which is what you seem to be looking for:
  
  ...In order to defend yourself in a case in which you are infringing the freedom of free software, you have to be prepared to meet a call that I make reasonably often with my colleagues at the Foundation who are here tonight. That telephone call goes like this: "Mr. Potential Defendant, you are distributing my client's copyrighted work without permission. Please stop. And if you want to continue to distribute it, we'll help you to get back your distribution rights, which have terminated by your infringement, but you are going to have to do it the right way."
  At the moment that I make that call, the potential defendant's lawyer now has a choice. He can cooperate with us, or he can fight with us. And if he goes to court and fights with us, he will have a second choice before him. We will say to the judge, "Judge, Mr. Defendant has used our copyrighted work, copied it, modified it and distributed it without permission. Please make him stop."
  One thing that the defendant can say is, "You're right. I have no license." Defendants do not want to say that, because if they say that they lose. So defendants, when they envision to themselves what they will say in court, realize that what they will say is, "But Judge, I do have a license. It's this here document, the GNU GPL. General Public License," at which point, because I know the license reasonably well, and I'm aware in what respect he is breaking it, I will say, "Well, Judge, he had that license but he violated its terms and under Section 4 of it, when he violated its terms, it stopped working for him."
  But notice that in order to survive moment one in a lawsuit over free software, it is the defendant who must wave the GPL. It is his permission, his master key to a lawsuit that lasts longer than a nanosecond. This, quite simply, is the reason...that there has never been a court test of the GPL.
  
  Given this kind of legal bind, most defendants when pressed by competent GPL plaintiffs would rather comply with the license like they are supposed to than fight it out in court under those terms.
  
  --
  Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
7. Re:No great surprise.. by Nikker · 2010-12-30 22:18 · Score: 0
  
  As far as going for the throat legally it might be best for the diplomatic approach this time around. The main reason there are so many people scared of entering the Tech (or any major) industry is because of this very situation, they throw something against the wall and see if it sticks. By suing these companies we will likely be suing Linux and FOSS right out the window and the rest of the "Big Guys(TM)" will just turn to the creative culture and remind them to all stay out. I don't want to be stuck with these idiots any longer, I want to be able to put my hands on a piece of tech and once I pay for what ever device I want to do what ever I want with it. I don't want to worry about some obscure kill switch bricking my gizmo or it tracking my usage so some company can whore my personal details out to the highest bidder all the while whining to me that the money I gave them in the first place is barely putting food on their tables. So if I was the one with the copyrights, I would say screw it let them play, bring me more stuff, pile shelves high as the roof and deep as the walls will allow. Hell we may lose out on source and documentation for some cheap ass obscure Chinese ripoff component but once the OS in general goes real main stream they will go the way of the dodo any way and people will hack it out of nostalgia. Once the underlying OS becomes as cookie cutter as the cheap hardware these guys are cobbling together everyone and anyone will be able to give it a go and that is exactly what will put more and better tech on the shelves and more importantly in my hands.
  
  So fuck it let them copy to their hearts content keep the source code but keep putting out gadgets and make people buy it get the taste of it so everyone can capitalize on the hard work millions of developers and users have been putting into this from day one.
  
  --
  A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
8. Re:No great surprise.. by jonbryce · 2010-12-31 00:43 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  There have been tests of the GPL in court. Two I'm aware of are MySQL ab v Progress Software Corp and Busybox v Westinghouse Digital Electronics. In both cases, it was held that the GPL does work as advertised.
9. Re:No great surprise.. by drinkypoo · 2010-12-31 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  While FOSS guys tend to be nice about it, the penalties in the US for copyright infringement are downright draconian, and that niceness is wholly optional.
  It remains to be seen if some FOSS guy inclined to not be nice about it would actually win in court. So far there have been zero examples of such so their behavior is eminently logical, if distasteful.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
10. Re:No great surprise.. by gnasher719 · 2010-12-31 01:09 · Score: 2
  
  You need money to sue someone. FOSS idealists have none, and big companies with vested interest in FOSS software that could afford the legal costs know better than to hurt their own kind. That's why everybody and their dogs trample on the GPL with zero fear of legal actions.
  With GPL v.3, if the software used implements any patents and you got a patent license through the GPL, then a GPL violation is now both copyright infringement and patent infringement. So things could get very nasty. And the low fear of legal actions doesn't come from "FOSS idealists having no money", it comes from "FOSS idealists being nice and not pressing for maximum damages".
11. Re:No great surprise.. by Fnkmaster · 2010-12-31 03:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Speaking as one of the Viewsonic G Tablet kernel hackers who helped push for VS to release source and has since identified and helped fix several of the critical kernel bugs, it was a non-trivial business problem to get the code.
  Malata, the hardware OEM, is Chinese and thus not subject to US or European IP law regarding things like the GPL. Viewsonic did not develop the software in house, they contracted the whole Android packaging and UI job out to a startup called Tap N Tap based in Cambridge, MA. Tap N Tap was then constrained by the confidentiality agreements they had with Viewsonic. Viewsonic didn't really have any software team on board who understood the legal issues involved and their marketing guys had to help push everything through legal with the help of the Tap N Tap guys. Furthermore, the G Tablet is apparently distributed by a company called US Worldwide under a distribution agreement of some sort with Viewsonic - so not clear that Viewsonic ever even took delivery of a single tablet themselves.
  We used Twitter to nag Viewsonic about not having released the kernel source and keep the issue in the public eye. Once they got clearance, they got the source from Tap N Tap, and posted it on the website.
  This all just happened on December 24th. So Viewsonic is still most likely working on legal compliance issues for other tablets. I'm sure if people make formal requests for source and send some nagging reminders like we did for the G Tablet, they'll release any GPLed source too - they are making an effort at least, unlike many companies.
  But it did take about a month long organized effort from the XDA Developers forums, involving call-ins to customer service, emails to top executives, and twitter posts. Much of that was simply education of people at several layers of the company about their obligations - again, their company never even touched the source code so this probably never went through their own legal people until we pushed it to them.
  The result is we were able to merge up a bunch of critical kernel bug fixes from the main NVidia Tegra 2 source tree and we now have custom kernels that support a crap-ton of new features, along with custom ROMs. And we've gotten source for basically all the drivers too and we've started improving some of them.
  No, we don't have the full source for the Tap N Tap UI stuff since Android's UI layer is Apache licensed and there's no obligation for Tap N Tap to release that code, but it doesn't affect us too much. We have the full AOSP source, the NVidia source tree, and there are so many custom launchers and stuff to work with out there that we've got several awesome ROMs released now.
  I suspect there may be similar legal/logistical issues with the other Viewsonic tablets' source code. I don't know if enough people have even bought those tablets to care enough to request source code though - if you own one, make a request to Viewsonic. Heck, their Marketing VP has an account on the XDA Developer forums now, you can PM him there.
  Also - that list is a bit misleading. Since we have the Viewsonic G Tablet kernel source, we basically have all the drivers and kernel code for all the Malata devices now, including the ZPad. In fact, Viewsonic released some of the ZPad drivers that aren't even used in the G Tablet (like the first gen ZPad resistive touchscreen driver).
  Additionally, Advent has stated that they are working to release source code for the Vega which is apparently assembled by BYD but as far as we can tell, uses most of the same components and a very similar design to the Malata ZPad. I suspect we have nearly all the drivers and patches for that in our Viewsonic release too, but I'm sure their official kernel source will be out within a few weeks regardless.
  So yeah, there are still some legal issues, but at least with the Tegra 2 devices and with most of the mainstream Western vendors, they are working their way to compliance currently.
12. Re:No great surprise.. by Pikoro · 2010-12-31 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  Or you just call Boss Hog and he'll call the judge and take care of it for ya'll.
  
  --
  "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
13. Re:No great surprise.. by Fnkmaster · 2010-12-31 03:54 · Score: 2
  
  As soon as we made Viewsonic aware of their obligations and got somebody halfway intelligent there involved (i.e. not just first line customer service people, though we got them to write up notes about the number of callers requesting GPL source code too), this went through marketing and legal, and they got source released within a matter of weeks for the G Tablet. You're right, nobody wants to sit on legal risk for products with slim margins in competitive markets.
  If you have a Coby or Sylvania device, just find the email addresses of some of their US execs, and send them emails explaining their legal compliance obligation to distribute source code to the kernel and other GPLed components of an Android device, and they'll push it over to legal quickly enough. Once a lawyer gets involved, yeah, the US-based rebadgers have plenty of leverage with Chinese OEMs. You'll have source code soon enough, depending on the complexity of the situation. With the Viewsonic G Tablet there were at least 4 companies involved - Viewsonic, Tap N Tap (the UI developer and guys that did all the Android software packaging for the G Tablet, US Merchants (the master distributor, apparently), and Malata (the hardware OEM in China). So it took a little while to even figure out who was doing what and had what code and what obligations.
14. Re:No great surprise.. by shentino · 2010-12-31 04:51 · Score: 0
  
  Methinks that copyright holders besides the FSF should start enforcing the GPL.
  Unfortunately when you have a legal system that only works for the highest bidder, you will get screwed.
  The only people that can fix it have a highly vested interest in preserving the status quo, and also have proverbial guns at their skulls to do so from the folks that are giving them the power to fix it.
15. Re:No great surprise.. by s73v3r · 2010-12-31 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  They were compelled to comply with the terms of the license. Which is the point behind the suits, not to get money.
16. Re:No great surprise.. by compro01 · 2010-12-31 07:49 · Score: 2
  
  Malata, the hardware OEM, is Chinese and thus not subject to US or European IP law regarding things like the GPL.
  The GPL's authority is based in copyright law and China is a signatory of the Berne convention (As well as the Universal Copyright Convention, the TRIPS agreement and the WIPO Copyright Treaty), so yes, they are subject to it. Just no one bothers to go after them about it.
  
  --
  upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
17. Re:No great surprise.. by sorak · 2010-12-31 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  IANAL, but I suspect that there's also a big risk there, beyond losing lots of lawyer fees. If you take on a giant and lose, you have just set a precedent that weakens the GPL. In theory, it shouldn't be that way*, but this would make it more difficult to win against more evenly matched legal teams in the future.
  * (ie either it's legal or not. It shouldn't matter if the last guy had a bad lawyer)
18. Re:No great surprise.. by Fnkmaster · 2010-12-31 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  LOL. Come on. I know technically I should have said "US or European IP law *enforcement*". The relevant difference between China and the US on copyright issues is clearly the level of enforcement possible, more than the laws on the books.
  Most large software companies can't stop the Chinese from rampantly copying their software illegally, so how exactly is a kernel developer supposed to navigate the massively corrupt Chinese legal system to try to enforce the GPL?
  It's taken years to build up enough ammo to scare US and European companies into GPL compliance, and we live in a regime of near-oppressive intellectual property laws.
19. Re:No great surprise.. by mattack2 · 2010-12-31 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  Since the FSF isn't the "highest bidder", your premise is shown to be flawed.
20. Re:No great surprise.. by shentino · 2010-12-31 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  And I can tell you're trolling because the word "unfortunately" served as a waiver of warranty for my premise.
  Call it wishful thinking that is labelled as such.
21. Re:No great surprise.. by hedwards · 2011-01-01 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  That's frequently the case with China. They're signed onto all sorts of things, both internally and internationally, but actually complying with the agreements is a completely different matter. Frequently the things are just as illegal under Chinese law as they are under American or international law, but for some reason the law doesn't get enforced and the investigation never made.
22. Re:No great surprise.. by JAlexoi · 2011-01-02 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  there has never been a court test of the GPL
  The speech is out of date. GPL was enforced multiple times, I remember not too long ago the case of the guy and code behind JMRI JMRI Defense: Recent Events
23. Re:No great surprise.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-03 21:52 · Score: 0
  
  Wouldn't matter anyway. The GPL works between two contract parties. Consumers do not enter into a contract with Malata and do not receive binaries from them. Malata could only be sued by their customer, i.e. ViewSonic. And I expect their contract to cover such cases anyway, probably by a blanket clause. (Supplier shall provide all legally required documents, designs, etc)
24. Re:No great surprise.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-04 00:13 · Score: 0
  
  Wouldn't matter anyway. The GPL works between two contract parties.
  It does matter, because GPL applies to the distributor of the work and it says you must provide source with the binary, or a written offer along with it to provide source on request. This applies any time you make a copy of the work and give/sell it to someone else.
  
  Consumers do not enter into a contract with Malata and do not receive binaries from them.
  No contracts are involved, but customers do receive binaries.
  
  Malata could only be sued by their customer, i.e. ViewSonic.
  They can be sued by the copyright holder of the code, because they are distributing it in violation of the license.
25. Re:No great surprise.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-01-11 16:18 · Score: 0
  
  fashion watches in China
Ship Source? by icebike · 2010-12-30 19:24 · Score: 4, Informative

They are Android. Google makes source available and the tablet vendors do too. There is no requirement to ship the source.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
1. Re:Ship Source? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 19:28 · Score: 0
  
  the distributor must make it available. just pointing to the google sources is not sufficient.
2. Re:Ship Source? by icebike · 2010-12-30 19:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It is sufficient if they use stock Android.
  Making available does not require shipping, nor does it include hosting your own servers. You need merely "make it available". There are no specific requirements as to where it must be a available, and having the Open Handset Alliance perform this service is sufficient.
  Samsung and some others are quite responsive in getting the source out there. Others not so much.
  My only point in my post above is there is no requirement that the source be "shipped". It merely needs to be available along with any modifications a manufacturer makes to it.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
3. Re:Ship Source? by MichaelSmith · 2010-12-30 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  It is sufficient if they use stock Android.
  For that to work the company earning profits from Android must contribute to hosting the source code. If that don't do that the version of android used on the tablet might not be available when needed.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
4. Re:Ship Source? by jonbryce · 2010-12-30 19:43 · Score: 1
  
  If you buy for example this
  http://www.next.co.uk/shopping/electric/computers/3/1?extra=sch&n=electric&pid=117-894&returnurl=%2Fsearch%2Fsearch%3Fp%3DQ%26lbc%3Dnext%26uid%3D808251970%26ts%3Dv8%26w%3Dtablet%26af%3D%26method%3Dand%26filter%3Dsubset%253a4201%26nxtv%3D000%26nxti%3D0%23117-894&bct=%26quot%3BTablet%26quot%3B
  You are entitled to be told it contains free software, and either be given a copy of the source, or be told where you can get a copy of it at no more than cost price at any time in the next three years after purchase.
  From what I can gather, you don't get anything like that when you buy it, and reading the reviews, there are plenty of other more pressing reasons why you wouldn't want to buy.
5. Re:Ship Source? by hacker · 2010-12-30 19:44 · Score: 2
  
  The source you provide or link to must be the same source used to produce the binaries you're shipping on your device. In other words, if I take Google's source and build binaries with it, and those binaries differ from the ones shipping on your device, it's not the same source code, and does not comply with the license.
  Pointing to a source for Android, is not the same thing as providing the source for the modifications to that source that you (as a vendor) have done to the source.
6. Re:Ship Source? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 19:48 · Score: 0
  
  The whole point here is that tablet vendors do _not_ make the source available.
7. Re:Ship Source? by mjg59 · 2010-12-30 19:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The Google reference kernel code doesn't contain the driver code for any of these tablets, and the vast majority of them are based on SoC platforms that don't exist at all in the Google code. The tablet vendors can't simply point at the Google repositories, they're obliged to either ship the source with the devices or provide a written offer to provide the source to any third party on request.
8. Re:Ship Source? by icebike · 2010-12-30 19:51 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  For that to work the company earning profits from Android must contribute to hosting the source code. If that don't do that the version of android used on the tablet might not be available when needed.
  The GPL makes no requirements as to who hosts the source code.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
9. Re:Ship Source? by icebike · 2010-12-30 19:53 · Score: 1
  
  Read the story.
  Some do. Some don't.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
10. Re:Ship Source? by perpenso · 2010-12-30 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  It is sufficient if they use stock Android.
  For that to work the company earning profits from Android must contribute to hosting the source code. If that don't do that the version of android used on the tablet might not be available when needed.
  There is no requirement to contribute. If the version they use is available they need to do nothing. If the version is not then they must find another site to refer to or make it available themselves.
  
  I think there is some confusion because the FSF recommends not referring to another site because they may stop providing your version at some time without your knowledge.
11. Re:Ship Source? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-12-30 19:56 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Even if the device in question is a completely unaltered build of upstream, public-ally available, sources, anything GPL still has to be either made available with the binary or the binary has to be accompanied by a written offer to provide on request for no more than reasonable duplication costs.
  
  Many of these devices probably don't deviate much from upstream; but I'd be surprised if they are 100% identical(not that that is legally relevant; but if you aren't even shipping a binary based on upstream source, you definitely can't just point to that source and claim to be in compliance). Now, in practice, if given the choice between just checking out from upstream or paying reasonable duplication fees to get a CD with some horribly messy .rar of a slapdash build environment on it, most people are probably just going to go with the former. That doesn't absolve the distributor of the binary of their legal obligations, though.
12. Re:Ship Source? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 20:02 · Score: 0
  
  It is not sufficient, even if they use stock Android. The exemption is only for non-commercial distribution. Commercial distributors must either ship the source with the binary or they themselves have to make the source available.
13. Re:Ship Source? by icebike · 2010-12-30 20:05 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Drivers are a debatable case.
  Some insist anything linked against the kernel libraries (making calls to the kernel) must be make source code available. But I do not believe this is the general consensus.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
14. Re:Ship Source? by MichaelSmith · 2010-12-30 20:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
  You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms
  of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the
  machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License,
  in one of these ways:
  a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
  (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the
  Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium
  customarily used for software interchange.
  b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
  (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a
  written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as
  long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product
  model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a
  copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the
  prodwuct that is covered by this License, on a durable physical
  medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no
  more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this
  conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the
  Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
  c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the
  written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This
  alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and
  only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord
  with subsection 6b.
  d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
  place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
  Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
  further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the
  Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to
  copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source
  may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party)
  that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain
  clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the
  Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the
  Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is
  available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
  e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided
  you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding
  Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no
  charge under subsection 6d.
  So say windows 8 turns out to be red hat linux with a new label on the box. For source code MSFT points back to red hat. The red hat servers melt from too much traffic and red hat restricts downloads to their own customers.
  For MSFT to satisfy the GPL they must have control over the infrastructure which delivers the source code. Otherwise they are not in compliance. They could do this by paying red hat to do it for them. They could do it themselves. Maybe google provides this service for Android. I don't know.
  Come on. We have been over this 1000 times.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
15. Re:Ship Source? by mjg59 · 2010-12-30 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  And by "drivers" here, I also mean "board setup code". I can guarantee you that the MSM code in the Google tree isn't going to know which gpio lines are connected to your tablet's LCD power control, even if the CPU happens to be the same one that was in the G1.
16. Re:Ship Source? by MichaelSmith · 2010-12-30 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  I think there is some confusion because the FSF recommends not referring to another site because they may stop providing your version at some time without your knowledge.
  Thats not confusing. Its very simple.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
17. Re:Ship Source? by icebike · 2010-12-30 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  Commercial distributors must either ship the source with the binary or they themselves have to make the source available.
  [citation needed]
  They need only make it available. They can hire someone else to do so. They need not set up a server for downloads.
  You can not cite any source for the phrase "they themselves have to make".
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
18. Re:Ship Source? by icebike · 2010-12-30 20:13 · Score: 1
  
  If you have been over it 1000 times, why did you quote the part about object code rather than the part about source code?
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
19. Re:Ship Source? by MichaelSmith · 2010-12-30 20:18 · Score: 2
  
  If you have been over it 1000 times, why did you quote the part about object code rather than the part about source code?
  Read the bits about providing Corresponding source:
  
  Regardless of what server hosts the
  Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is
  available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
20. Re:Ship Source? by julesh · 2010-12-30 20:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Err... that is the part that requires source code to be distributed. Read it. It specifies 4 ways that you can distribute source code:
  - on a disk supplied with the device you're shipping
  - with a written offer supplied with the device you're shipping
  - forwarding a written offer provided by somebody else (only available for noncommercial distributors)
  - providing a download *from the same location the customer downloaded the binaries*.
21. Re:Ship Source? by MichaelSmith · 2010-12-30 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  My LG Android has a page in the setup application which lists the license of every binary and ends with the offer to provide the source. I would be interested in the contents of the corresponding page on this tablet.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
22. Re:Ship Source? by Rakishi · 2010-12-30 20:23 · Score: 1
  
  The red hat servers melt from too much traffic and red hat restricts downloads to their own customers.
  And until either of those things happen MSFT is perfectly compliant with the GPL. If those things happen then they need to provide another location for the source but there is no need to do so preemptively.
  Your logic dictates that any approach which has the possibility of going down, which is all of them, is not GPL compliant. So by your logic no company can ever be compliant with the GPL since it's always possible for their servers to crash and thus render them no longer compliant with the GPL.
23. Re:Ship Source? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 20:24 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Come on, the GPL isn't the new kid on the block that nobody knows.
  From the GNU GPLv2:
  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.)
24. Re:Ship Source? by icebike · 2010-12-30 20:25 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Exactly.
  But some here insist you must PERSONALLY host it. This bit is not true. Nor need you ship it.
  You need simply to make it available SOMEWHERE for three years.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
25. Re:Ship Source? by icebike · 2010-12-30 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  And "way" number 2 is the only one necessary for a tablet.
  If a website is mentioned, somewhere in the paperwork or in the on screen menus, the manufacturer has met his obligation.
  You do not have to SHIP the source.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
26. Re:Ship Source? by SharpFang · 2010-12-30 20:29 · Score: 2
  
  Must make it available ON REQUEST, to a person who received the binary.
  Not ship with the tablet. Not publish on the website. Not mail it to anyone who asks, ever.
  If I have purchased the tablet, I am entitled to request the sources from the distributor. And they must make them available to me them in reasonable amount of time.
  I did study this bit for a while. We're making a big embedded industrial product that runs on Linux. We don't even have the sources in any form that could be shipped - the repository is a mix of Free and proprietary. But the last page of the manual contains the sacred phrase: "This device uses software and libraries licensed under GNU GPL, GNU LGPL and Apache licenses. According to requirements of these licenses, our company will make source code of this software available to all interested customers. In order to obtain the source code, please contact [email]"
  We're pretty well aware where the line goes - what is our modifications of the OS which virally became GPL), which is userspace (proprietary) and which is glue logic to LGPL libraries (and has to be made available). If one of our customers requests the sources, we will have to extract the free ones from the repository, attach the toolchain, pack it up and send. But since our customers are not in the IT industry, and essentially want the devices to sit and do their job without ever being touched, we have a reasonable belief we will never have to act upon this requirement.
  And no, we are not under obligation to give our sources to random hackers who did not purchase our specialized $15k piece of equipment (with the firmware) first.
  
  --
  45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
27. Re:Ship Source? by icebike · 2010-12-30 20:32 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly.
  Where do you see the word SHIP in there?
  b) says a web address is sufficient.
  Why is this so hard for you to understand?
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
28. Re:Ship Source? by julesh · 2010-12-30 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  And "way" number 2 is the only one necessary for a tablet.
  Yes. And TFA is quite clear that they aren't doing this.
  
  The GPL requires that vendors either provide the source code to the GPL components with the device, or alternatively to provide a written offer to provide the source code upon request. Many vendors fail to do this.
29. Re:Ship Source? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 20:34 · Score: 0
  
  You must make it available. You, not someone else. Of course you can fulfill this obligation through outsourcing, but it is not sufficient to point at someone else who independently of you offers the same source. Doing so is explicitly forbidden by the license.
  (And if you don't ship with source, then the offer for the source has to be shipped with the binary. You can not hide it in the basement in a toilet with a sign "beware of the tiger" and no lamps, no stairs - or in an "Open Source Zealots" subcategory of your web page.)
30. Re:Ship Source? by jeremyp · 2010-12-30 20:37 · Score: 2
  
  Because he is quoting the part about what gives you the right to distribute the object code. Each of the bullet points gives a method of object code distribution and the methods of source code distribution that allow you to comply with the licence.
  Of course, he is quoting the wrong licence. The Linux kernel is distributed under GPL v2.
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
31. Re:Ship Source? by mjg59 · 2010-12-30 20:42 · Score: 1
  
  "Must make it available ON REQUEST, to a person who received the binary."
  I'd really recommend that you re-read 3(b) of GPLv2, which is what's relevant in this discussion.
32. Re:Ship Source? by icebike · 2010-12-30 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  So after all the drama we are agreed that there is no requirement to SHIP the source?
  Wow. What a long way to go to get to that cleared up.
  Samsung always makes source available. Not necessarily instantly, sometimes it takes a month or so.
  ARCHOS always makes it available. Imagine that! Archos!?
  The rest? Well without digging thru their documentation, web sites, and "about screens" I can't be sure there isn't a written notice somewhere, and have to take the authors word that he did an exhaustive search. I have no doubt some are ignorant of this requirement.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
33. Re:Ship Source? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 20:44 · Score: 0
  
  Are you dense? You may either "Accompany it [the binary] with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code", or "Accompany it [the binary] with a written offer [...] to give any third party [...] the corresponding source code". The third option is not applicable. That's plain English. You offer to give the source. You. You don't offer that the recipient may get the source from somewhere else. YOU OFFER TO GIVE. Plain fucking English.
34. Re:Ship Source? by Peeteriz · 2010-12-30 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  They have to include an offer on how exactly the user can get the source code, and they are liable for fulfilling it - they can rely on a third party such as Open Handset Alliance, but they must include an offer stating that OHA will do it, and are liable if OHA doesn't do it for some reason (say, not having the exact version that matches the code on the shipped device)
35. Re:Ship Source? by icebike · 2010-12-30 20:50 · Score: 1
  
  I like how you selectively quote things.
  Did you miss the part about:
  " on a medium customarily used for software interchange"
  Translation: Website. No where does it say who has to run that web site.
  Case closed.
  Get off you high horse.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
36. Re:Ship Source? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 21:00 · Score: 0
  
  You. It's one of the simplest words in the English language. You. By accepting the license YOU agree that YOU will ship either the source or an offer saying that YOU will give the source to any third party. Yes, YOU may do so by means of a web site. No, someone else distributing the source through their web site is not YOU giving the source code. English, learn it.
37. Re:Ship Source? by icebike · 2010-12-30 21:12 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Law, learn it.
  YOU have satisfied your obligation if you provide a means of to obtain it.
  YOU do not have to run a web site.
  YOU do not have to physically hand the source code over on a CD.
  YOU can hire someone, or merely have an agreement with someone.
  YOU have no idea what the hell YOU are talking about.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
38. Re:Ship Source? by SharpFang · 2010-12-30 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  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;
  
  the last page of the manual contains the sacred phrase: "This device uses software and libraries licensed under GNU GPL, GNU LGPL and Apache licenses. According to requirements of these licenses, our company will make source code of this software available to all interested customers. In order to obtain the source code, please contact [email]"
  Did I miss anything?
  
  --
  45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
39. Re:Ship Source? by uglyduckling · 2010-12-30 22:02 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, you did miss something: "any third party". You stated "...we are not under obligation to give our sources to random hackers...". I'm not a lawyer, and I wonder whether "any third party" means something more restrictive in this context, but a plain English reading implies that anyone at all can request a copy of the source, and you would be obliged to comply.
40. Re:Ship Source? by ShakaUVM · 2010-12-30 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  >>You must make it available
  "You must make it available" != "You must ensure it is available."
41. Re:Ship Source? by cas2000 · 2010-12-30 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  The red hat servers melt from too much traffic and red hat restricts downloads to their own customers.
  
  if RH did that, then *they* would not be in compliance with the GPL.
  the kernel and many other programs on RH are GPLv2, so they have to make them available to any third party. Many other programs are GPLv3, so they have to make them available to anyone who possesses a copy of the object code (no matter how they obtained it).
  so...
  ethically, MSFT probably should host source for any GPL code they distribute. practically and legally, they don't have to. they can pay someone else to do it or, if their distributed object code is identical (unchanged) from upstream they can point at someone who does host it. the FSF or RH for example
42. Re:Ship Source? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 22:44 · Score: 0
  
  It's a bit of both: you only need to provide source to someone who gets the binary but the binary may be distributed to a third party by a customer - see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
43. Re:Ship Source? by hitmark · 2010-12-30 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  I guess that is what http://www.linaro.org/ is trying to organize.
  
  --
  comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
44. Re:Ship Source? by MichaelSmith · 2010-12-30 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  The red hat servers melt from too much traffic and red hat restricts downloads to their own customers.
  if RH did that, then *they* would not be in compliance with the GPL.
  If the GPL worked that way any large vendor (IBM or Oracle) could put Red Hat out of business by redistributing RHEL and putting the source distribution requirement back on Red Hat.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
45. Re:Ship Source? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 23:45 · Score: 0
  
  The red hat servers melt from too much traffic and red hat restricts downloads to their own customers.
  if RH did that, then *they* would not be in compliance with the GPL.
  If the GPL worked that way any large vendor (IBM or Oracle) could put Red Hat out of business by redistributing RHEL and putting the source distribution requirement back on Red Hat.
  That would be unethical.
46. Re:Ship Source? by Fiduciary · 2010-12-30 23:48 · Score: 1
  
  Just how many users would you expect to download the source code anyway?! I'm going to put the number at about twelve.
47. Re:Ship Source? by Fiduciary · 2010-12-30 23:51 · Score: 2
  
  So say windows 8 turns out to be red hat linux with a new label on the box. For source code MSFT points back to red hat. The red hat servers melt from too much traffic and red hat restricts downloads to their own customers.
  For MSFT to satisfy the GPL they must have control over the infrastructure which delivers the source code. Otherwise they are not in compliance. They could do this by paying red hat to do it for them. They could do it themselves. Maybe google provides this service for Android. I don't know.
  Come on. We have been over this 1000 times.
  All 12 windows users interested in the source code melt red hat's servers?
48. Re:Ship Source? by peragrin · 2010-12-31 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  yea for Irony RH hosted the files on IIS, to stress test the competition.
  After all you can't beat them unless you know where the bar is actually set.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
49. Re:Ship Source? by TheRaven64 · 2010-12-31 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  It is sufficient if they use stock Android.
  No it isn't - read the GPL (section 3). If they did not receive the source, but just received an offer in writing to provide the source on request, then they may provide that offer instead of the source to other people. Alternatively, they must provide an offer in writing (good for three years) to provide the source, or must provide the source along with the binaries, on a medium commonly used for software interchange (for example, print-outs of the source would not satisfy this condition). Pointing at the upstream location for downloading the source is never okay for GPLv2 (it is for GPLv3, but I don't think that Android contains any GPLv3 stuff).
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
50. Re:Ship Source? by TheRaven64 · 2010-12-31 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  Note that this is the GPLv3, which is not relevant to android. GPLv2 only allows the first three ways of distributing the source (it was written back when Internet access was rare and software was commonly distributed on tapes - the FSF used to sell tapes of the GNU source tree).
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
51. Re:Ship Source? by TheRaven64 · 2010-12-31 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  if RH did that, then *they* would not be in compliance with the GPL.
  So? The GPL is an agreement between two parties - the person who gives the code and the person who receives the code. If A gives GPL'd code to B and B gives it to C, then there A has no obligations towards C. If A ceases to exist as a legal entity, then B is still liable to fulfil the GPL obligations to C.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
52. Re:Ship Source? by TheRaven64 · 2010-12-31 00:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Some insist anything linked against the kernel libraries (making calls to the kernel) must be make source code available. But I do not believe this is the general consensus.
  It's more complex than that. Drivers do not have to be GPL'd, unless they are a derived work of the kernel. If they are not (e.g. the nVidia blob drivers), then they may be distributed under any license that you wish.
  The kernel, however, requires that anything linked to it be distributed under a GPL-compatible license. Any Linux kernel that links against things under a license that the GPL is incompatible with, is in violation of the GPL. The GPL, however, makes it clear that you do not require any license to use the code, so end users may download the Linux kernel and the nVidia drivers, link them together, and still be allowed to use the code.
  What they can't do is distribute the result. If you distribute the Linux kernel along with a GPL-incompatible driver, then you are in violation of the GPL. This means that you have no valid license to distribute the Linux kernel (unless you acquire one from all of the Linux copyright holders), and so every time you copy the kernel you are committing copyright infringement. Shipping a device with binary-only drivers and a Linux kernel is almost certainly wilful infringement, and carries a statutory penalty of up to $150K in the USA. It's probably cheaper to use FreeBSD...
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
53. Re:Ship Source? by jonbryce · 2010-12-31 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  I think it means that if someone else buys your machine second hand from one of your customers, then they have a right to the source. I guess you can always ask for the serial number of the machine before shipping the source, and having that would help you send the right version of the code anyway.
54. Re:Ship Source? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 01:10 · Score: 0
  
  I must say it would be outrageous of these software developers if they did require code to be transported via ship, what about the poor people who dont even have a live on the foreshore, or who's jetty is under maintenance. Ships indeed, preposterous i say !
  Wont somebody think of the middle-upper class...
55. Re:Ship Source? by pjt33 · 2010-12-31 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  It gets complicated. You can ship a kernel and a driver side-by-side ("mere aggregation" - section 2 of GPLv2). A user can then use modprobe to load the driver. At this point, has infringement occurred?
56. Re:Ship Source? by cas2000 · 2010-12-31 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  how, exactly, would that put RH out of business? you mean the tiny fraction of the tiny percentage of IBM or Oracle customers who actually want the source would cost RH so much in bandwidth that they'd go bankrupt? yes, i'm sure that's very likely. BTW, the GPL *does* work that way.
57. Re:Ship Source? by cas2000 · 2010-12-31 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  A also has an obligation to the author(s) who wrote the code and licensed it to A - and by redistributing the GPL code, A agreed to the terms.
  in the situation you describe above, both A and B have GPL-related obligations to C. this is true for both GPLv2 and GPLv3. GPLv2 says they have an obligation to provide source to ANY third party, GPLv3 says they have an obligation to provide source to ANYONE who has a copy of the object code they distributed.
  is that really so difficult to understand?
58. Re:Ship Source? by TheRaven64 · 2010-12-31 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  GPLv2 says they have an obligation to provide source to ANY third party
  Not true. They may have such an obligation, but only if they did not provide the source along with the binary. Actually, they never quite have that obligation. According to clause 3b of GPLv2, they have to provide a written offer good for three years to provide the source to any third party, but after three years they don't have to provide the source, and they don't have to provide the source to anyone who did not receive this written offer (either from them, or as a result of someone else satisfying clause 3c).
  
  is that really so difficult to understand?
  Apparently so.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
59. Re:Ship Source? by TrekkieGod · 2010-12-31 02:08 · Score: 2
  
  It gets complicated. You can ship a kernel and a driver side-by-side ("mere aggregation" - section 2 of GPLv2). A user can then use modprobe to load the driver. At this point, has infringement occurred?
  That is not mere aggregation. To get a binary that can be loaded into the kernel with modprobe, you must have already linked with the kernel. It's the reason why nvidia doesn't ship a driver ready to be loaded that way. You must use gcc to compile their little wrapper and link to the kernel yourself.
  Either that or get it from your distro, who are most certainly violating the GPL when they ship it. The reason nobody is complaining is because all that this would accomplish is getting the distros to stop compiling drivers for you, and making everybody else's life difficult. Nvidia would still be able to ship their little wrapper with a binary blob, but now you'd have to go through that extra step.
  
  --
  Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
60. Re:Ship Source? by pjt33 · 2010-12-31 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  I understand you to be saying that yes, you can work around the GPL, but you have to include an extra step. You have something which links in directly to the kernel and ship source for that, but it ties together the kernel and the driver and allows you to ship a binary driver with the kernel. Is that it?
61. Re:Ship Source? by TrekkieGod · 2010-12-31 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  I understand you to be saying that yes, you can work around the GPL, but you have to include an extra step. You have something which links in directly to the kernel and ship source for that, but it ties together the kernel and the driver and allows you to ship a binary driver with the kernel. Is that it?
  Yeah, that's it, although I personally wouldn't call it "working around the GPL." That point is arguable, but the way I see it, the GPL restricts distribution, not use. If you, as the user, are willing to link something that is not free with your gpl code, you're absolutely free to do so. You're just not allowed to distribute the results.
  Basically, I agree with your point on aggregation. I just wanted to clarify that if all you need to is type "modprobe driver_name", than that means that a driver_name.ko file exists which was already pre-linked with your kernel. Distributing that .ko file (with or without the kernel) is a violation of the GPL. Distributing a binary file that has not yet been linked with the kernel, and then having you build the .ko file yourself is not.
  
  --
  Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
62. Re:Ship Source? by WorBlux · 2010-12-31 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  Regardless of who maintains the website this YOU person is responsible for keeping the offer made to distribute the source code. With a commercial distribution of unmodified code you can in theory point to someone else's sources that are on line, but if they were to go off line, then YOU would still be responsible for fulfilling the offer made.
63. Re:Ship Source? by Fnkmaster · 2010-12-31 03:46 · Score: 2
  
  Kernel source, specifically drivers and patches to build your own usable kernel is the issue here.
  It's a real problem with tablets. Yeah, in terms of the OS itself, AOSP provides everything we need to build our own, and vendors aren't under any obligation to provide UI layer changes they make to Apache-licensed stuff. That's fine, because 90% of those vendor changes suck anyway.
  But many of these tablets ship with buggy, binary-only kernels and driver modules with mysterious patch sets used to build them. Kernel source is key, and we've just recently started getting a lot of these companies to provide source.
  I personally couldn't care less about whether the source is shipped on a CD with the device or provided on a website by the hardware vendor. I think that applies to most users and developers. That's a technicality that only a lawyer would love. If the source to all GPL-derived components (i.e. kernel, etc.) is freely available, under the GPL license, with instructions to build it that an experienced developer can easily complete, to anybody who has bought the device, whether by shipping, written offer, or download from the web, they are complying with the spirit of the GPL. Some of the old GPL verbiage about written offers and shipping CDs comes from an era prior to the ubiquity of high bandwidth internet connectivity.
64. Re:Ship Source? by mjg59 · 2010-12-31 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. Your offer says "interested customers", whereas 3(b) says "any third party".
65. Re:Ship Source? by pjt33 · 2010-12-31 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  I do also wonder how well the argument that linking creates a derivative work would hold up in court - you could make the case that you can create a partial index to a work without creating a derivative work (and e.g. Google would certainly want to support you in making that case), and you can link using a partial "index" to the kernel without using the kernel itself.
66. Re:Ship Source? by TrekkieGod · 2010-12-31 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  I do also wonder how well the argument that linking creates a derivative work would hold up in court - you could make the case that you can create a partial index to a work without creating a derivative work (and e.g. Google would certainly want to support you in making that case), and you can link using a partial "index" to the kernel without using the kernel itself.
  They're incomplete by themselves though. They are literally replete with symbols which are undefined until loaded by the kernel. The result of their operations rely upon calls to the symbols they "indexed". I wouldn't see any problems making the case that they are a derivative work.
  That said, I'm not a lawyer, nor an expert in such matters. Either way, I don't see Linus or any of the kernel hackers who share the copyrights giving anyone a hard time for shipping drivers, and the entire point is moot if they don't want to enforce that clause for this particular purpose.
  
  --
  Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
67. Re:Ship Source? by 10101001+10101001 · 2010-12-31 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  YOU have satisfied your obligation if you provide a means of to obtain it.
  That's the critical point, though. If someone else is hosting the code, they could take it down at any time. The reason for the difference between provision 3(b) and 3(c) is clearly to grant noncommercial bodies to release programs without having to necessarily host (or pay to host) the source code. But a tablet maker is commercial. When they release an Android-based tablet, they're the licensee (ie, the "You" in the GPLv2). They're the ones responsible for providing the means to the code. They can't simply rely upon Google or whoever to host the code, not simply because they might not be around in three years hosting the code but because the license is very explicit that it's the licensee that's responsible directly. No third party can be the host (although I'm not sure if you could use a wholly owned subsidiary to host the code).
  In simple terms, if a contract or license says I have to provide something, then I have to provide it. A simple analogy is if I said I'd provide water to a person, then I couldn't simply point them to a community tap. I'd at least minimally have to be a proxy and fetch/provide the water.
  
  --
  Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
68. Re:Ship Source? by cdrguru · 2010-12-31 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but where most of these devices are made (China) there is no possible enforcement of US law. Now, there may be a possibility that the US subsidary of a Japanese company using a Chinese-built device could be sued but I suspect if push came to shove they would point at the Chinese contractor and say they have no source code, it is all in China.
  The US does not presently enforce patents or trademarks at the border. Would they block import because of a copyright violation? Perhaps, because pirated software and such is often blocked. But counterfeit purses and such are certainly not blocked. So it is completely open to question if any sort of lawsuit might be effective against a Chinese manufacturer.
  Most companies with a substantial US presence aren't going to mind complying with this but they are unlikely to provide a package that will actually be of much value. So you get 90% of the source for a device and no build environment and no signing keys.
  The cases where the device is manufactured in China and there is no substantial US presence are unlikely to ever come into compliance and there really aren't any penalties except a huge PR nightmare in a very tiny geek community.
69. Re:Ship Source? by Minwee · 2010-12-31 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  There is no requirement to ship the source.
  Well, the Free Software Foundation, a group of people who happen to know a thing or two about the GPL, seems to disagree with you about that.
70. Re:Ship Source? by HiThere · 2010-12-31 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  A written offer somewhere on their website isn't the same as a written offer shipped with the code. It isn't even approximately the same.
  That said, if they actually follow through with the offer, then I doubt that there'd be a lawsuit.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
71. Re:Ship Source? by HiThere · 2010-12-31 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Cleared that through a lawyer? I didn't think so. IANAL, but the way I've always heard it interpreted it that *YOU* must do the distribution. You can't just say that someone else is distributing it, so the code's available.
  And there are numerous reasons for this. One is because source code is volatile, and what you distribute must match the binary that you distribute. And unless you ship the source with the binary, you must continue to provide the source that matches the binary you shipped for 3 years. So bug fixes can't be incorporated, etc. What you distribute as source must match what you distributed as binary.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
72. Re:Ship Source? by HiThere · 2010-12-31 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but source code is volatile. It changes. Pointing to someone else's site may work today, but tomorrow they may change the page, fix a bug, just take it down. Anything.
  So, yes, if you could depend on some independent third party to host identical code to the code that compiles to the binary that you distributed, and to continue doing so for 3 years, then you would have a valid argument.
  You can't. Their 3 year time cycle is guaranteed to be different from yours, or you wouldn't know that their page existed. Or they'll fix a bug and move the prior copy to a different location, and then what you point to doesn't match the code you shipped.
  In theory you would have an argument, but the effort required to stay compliant via that means would far surpass the effort required to just host the code.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
73. Re:Ship Source? by HiThere · 2010-12-31 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Almost. It's not infringing unless you distribute it. You know, like sell it or give it away.
  The end user *can't* violate the GPL. The only way for them to violate the GPL is to become a distributor instead of an end-user. But once you link GPL code with non-free code you have something that's illegal to distribute. This is sort of silly, but it's the way the interface between the legal system and the GPL worked out.
  I can see the point of the guy who claimed that it would be easier to use BSD, but he's ignoring that the end user software runs under Linux, not BSD. So he'd need to write a compatibility layer. (This is what SCO was planning on doing when R.Love was GM, before it was taken over by Vandals. I never did like his policies, but they were honest at the time. And when he switched jobs he supported FOSS. So perhaps he was being pushed by the board.)
  OTOH...*DOES* BSD, or rather one of the BSDs, have a Linux compatibility layer? If so, that might be a *very* good idea. It worked out well for Apple.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
74. Re:Ship Source? by HiThere · 2010-12-31 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  Counterfeit purses, etc., are, indeed, blocked. But only after someone pushes customs to do so.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
75. Re:Ship Source? by cas2000 · 2010-12-31 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  nice quibble about the fact that i used the phrase "provide source to" as shorthand for the various methods of providing, making available, or offering source specified in clause 3 and sub-clauses 3a, 3b, and 3c.
  way to go! you'll get to be a junior-level fatuous caviller in no time with a performance like that!
  it's a pointless distraction, though. the details of the manner of providing source were NOT what I was discussing. I was discussing the *obligation*, not the manner.
  you claimed that A did not have any GPL obligations to C (who received the GPL-ed code from B rather than directly from A).
  that is incorrect. as i said, both A and B have obligations to C.
76. Re:Ship Source? by Arker · 2010-12-31 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  And no, we are not under obligation to give our sources to random hackers who did not purchase our specialized $15k piece of equipment (with the firmware) first.
  Actually, based on what you have said, you ARE under that obligation. If you simply shipped the code with the binaries/devices you would not be, but since you didnt do that, you must supply source to "any third party."
  
  I did study this bit for a while.
  Either you didnt, or you are exceptionally bad at reading. The license isnt hard to understand.
  
  --
  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
77. Re:Ship Source? by pjt33 · 2010-12-31 14:05 · Score: 1
  
  What I'm trying to explore here is the precise meaning of "derivative work". What is the dividing line between distributing a derivative work in infringement of the GPL and distributing a GPL'd work with a non-GPL'd one and having the user create the derivative work? I suspect that it's a bit fuzzy still in many jurisdictions.
78. Re:Ship Source? by uglyduckling · 2010-12-31 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're reading way too much into that. Nowhere in the GPL does it discuss hardware changing hands in order for source to be provided.
79. Re:Ship Source? by fatphil · 2011-01-01 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Saying "redhat has it, look over there" is not "giving ... access".
  
  However, it appears the GPL still doesn't handle the idea of CDNs cleanly. Clearly CDNs must be allowed, but it appears they aren't.
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
80. Re:Ship Source? by fatphil · 2011-01-01 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  If you're taking the 2nd option, then you have to "give" the source code. Pointing to someone else's server and saying "get it from them" is not "giving".
  
  --
  Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
81. Re:Ship Source? by julesh · 2011-01-01 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  The rest? Well without digging thru their documentation, web sites, and "about screens" I can't be sure there isn't a written notice somewhere, and have to take the authors word that he did an exhaustive search. I have no doubt some are ignorant of this requirement.
  The written notice has to be shipped in the same package as the device, and it has to be, well, *written*. As in, on paper. A notice in the back of the manual, or on the inevitable sticker inside the device's battery compartment (or whereever the manufacturer normally puts stuff like serial numbers, copyright notices, etc), would be the normal approach. Something buried in the manufacturer's web site is not enough. Either the source or the offer to provide the source must be shipped with the device.
  Also, the offer must include the option of having the source shipped on physical media, a "download only" option is not sufficient (at least for GPLv2; I think this may have changed in v3, but the Linux kernel is licensed under v2 only).
  See: http://gpl-violations.org/faq/vendor-faq.html
82. Re:Ship Source? by julesh · 2011-01-01 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  The distinction is irrelevant in this case anyway; the customer didn't download the binaries, so even under GPLv3 the option wouldn't be available.
83. Re:Ship Source? by hedwards · 2011-01-01 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  That interpretation makes little sense. Sure you might not be required to make it available to anybody who wants it, but you can't stop others from redistributing the same code once they've got it. All you've done is save a bit of bandwidth and make people get it through somebody else.
  
  You're not going to achieve your goal in that fashion.
84. Re:Ship Source? by HiThere · 2011-01-01 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  For that you need the opinion of a copyright lawyer. IANAL or any stripe, and copyright law is strange (though not a strange as patent law). But if I understand it correctly linked code *IS* a derivative work if it depends upon the code it links to to perform it's functions. So then you get into arguments about just what it's functions are.
  But source code is always safe to ship with GPL code. And that source code can itself, if it's license permits, link to non-GPL code. But when you compile and link the code it becomes a derivative work, even if you're linking to libraries that are dynamically bound. Again, IANAL, and this is based on one person's opinion of what a doctrine based on (I think) dramatic manuscripts meant when translated into a precedent binding on computer code.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
85. Re:Ship Source? by icebike · 2011-01-01 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  A download source is sufficient. Not even the most rabid FSF lawyer argues anything different.
  It is a customary and usual method of source code distribution.
  Further, this offer need not be printed (You made that up). It can simply be available in the help on screen in the device itself, such as you see in your Android phone when you look in Settings / About Phone / Legal information.
  Please stop posting FUD.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
86. Re:Ship Source? by JAlexoi · 2011-01-02 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Well China is a signatory of the Berne Convention, therefore GPL and related copyrights can be enforced on Chinese companies. Just you have to file the case in China.
please be sure ... by Osgeld · 2010-12-30 19:28 · Score: 2

to buy from the list of GPL approved items...
not to be a douche on this, but what is my incentive?
If GPL item A is inferior to my needs than non technicality item B, why should I be buying A to enforce a co-alliance's problem, is it not their issue for letting these B items exist without ramifications?
I for one am not going to bother checking a "naughty and nice" list for every single fkin purchase, force them if you want your licence to be inforced, otherwise leave me, the consumer out of it
thanks
1. Re:please be sure ... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 19:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Assuming that you personally don't care about the ability to see and modify the source to the whole operating system on your phone, perhaps it would be nice to avoid this scenario:
  1) You buy GPL-violating tablet from no-name company.
  2) Company gets sued or threatened.
  3) Company disappears and your device no longer has any support.
2. Re:please be sure ... by vlueboy · 2010-12-30 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  Step 3 alone deserves this AC be modded up!
  First-world markets are already cutthroat enough as it is, and you cannot find any device past 18 months still sitting on shelves brand new unless it is super, extremely popular. If you compare the success and support of your quickcams or blackberries, which are slightly different and each have their own idiosyncracies (remember the one that never got Win2K support when random other ones did.)
  Now, if we throw in an unstable mix of producers who get threatened to remove things in half that 18 months, or keep them stuck forever because litigation rather than innovation is the only thing in their sights, then we might as well not play the game. We already have enough Apple Newtons et al; we don't need 10 more of those great products. We need just one that we don't need to put on ebay every year to pave the way for a supported, full price version of the one we're selling.
3. Re:please be sure ... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-12-30 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  You sound awfully bent out of shape, given that what you are responding to is some random internet writer's semi-rhetorical request...
  
  Obviously, only people with a strong personal interest in GPL matters are going to factor that in to their buying decision(along with a halo of people who don't actually care whether a specific distributor is compliant or not; but are basing their buying decision on whether or not a good 3rd-party build is available, since the 1st party builds on a lot of these no-names are going to be pretty dodgy. That halo is, indirectly, going to be influenced by which hardware has had working source cobbled together from somewhere, they just won't much care where...)
  
  If neither of these is an incentive to you, you don't have an incentive. Don't worry, I'm sure that you will survive ignoring a request by somebody on the internet.
4. Re:please be sure ... by Osgeld · 2010-12-30 20:04 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  yea companies like Samsung ...
  ok BSchinatech.ripoff I can understand, I pay 75 bucks for a tab, 5 years later who gives a crap
  but Sylvania is on that list too, are they a no-name company that will vanish from a little GPL lawsuit? what about Zenith or Viewsonic, or Creative Labs?
5. Re:please be sure ... by Osgeld · 2010-12-30 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  replace Samsung with Sylvania, my bad first sentence
6. Re:please be sure ... by Osgeld · 2010-12-30 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  Im not bent out of shape, I just dont want to hear about all these issues with a silly license when the people most interested in it wont do a darn thing
  not GPL = I should keep track of a stupid list of devices to be kosher
  no sorry, these are multimillion organizations, keep track and take care of your own shit
  if that is too much bother, than dont expect me to check a list before purchasing
7. Re:please be sure ... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 20:49 · Score: 0
  
  not to be a douche on this, but what is my incentive?
  Not to be a douche, that should be your incentive,
  .
  Also, "Vendors that are complying with the GPL are usually the planning a long-term investment in developing Linux/Android-based devices".
8. Re:please be sure ... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 21:12 · Score: 0
  
  The point is, if the company has not thought about GPL issues they probably aren't in it for the long haul. Software updates or new versions to those devices may appear but I'd rather trust someone who actually has clue....
9. Re:please be sure ... by Soft · 2010-12-30 21:24 · Score: 1
  
  not to be a douche on this, but what is my incentive?
  
  The same as for not downloading music that is not being offered legitimately. (Not even for free; you'd actually be paying the pirate, and not the artist.)
10. Re:please be sure ... by imroy · 2010-12-30 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  not to be a douche on this, but what is my incentive? If GPL item A is inferior to my needs than non technicality item B...
  Your incentive is that the maker of item B might screw you and others over with the existing device or future devices e.g DRM, locking away your data in proprietary formats, selling your info to advertisers, trying to stop third-party firmware, etc. You have to wonder if their attitude to the GPL is just part of a general pattern of exploitation and corporate arrogance.
11. Re:please be sure ... by noidentity · 2010-12-30 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  If the company doesn't release the source, you're less-likely to get user improvements (think OpenWRT for example), or product life extension after the company abandons it. The GPL is useful even to non-programmers, because they can still benefit from what programmers do and share with everyone using the device.
12. Re:please be sure ... by icebraining · 2010-12-31 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to be under the impression that the GPL is designed to protect the original developer. It's not, it's designed to protect you, the end-user.
  You might not care, but lots of people don't care about the warranty, doesn't mean they should never offer it.
  If you want an example of how it could benefit you, imagine you get a tablet with a modified version of Android Froyo. Then you want to upgrade to Gingerbread but alas, the company doesn't offer it.
  Now, if the GPL had been followed, any developer could download the sources, merge them with Gingerbread's and offer a nice downloadable packaged for you to upgrade your tablet.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
13. Re:please be sure ... by Antique+Geekmeister · 2010-12-31 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  Or, what is also very likely.
  1) You buy _anything_ from no-name company.
  2) Company goes under because they didn't make the incredible sums of money they told their venture capitalists they would make. (This is *very* common with portable device manufacturers.) Or becasue their batteries melt. Or because their manager embezzled the money. Or because they get bought up by another company that could not care less about their purchased company's previous owners.
  3) In any case, with such a company, your device never had any support anyway: if they can't be bothered to follow the very modest requirements of the GPL, they doubtless had no support capacity anyway. I've actually seen this in manufacturing and software, and the weirdness companies companies go through to avoid having anyone actually take support calls, which cost time and money.
  Consider GPL compliance a very good litmus for the device quality. If they can't be bothered to obey simple laws about copyright, what are they violating in terms of bettery recharger handling or basic physical manufacture quality?
14. Re:please be sure ... by Antique+Geekmeister · 2010-12-31 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  You're less likely to get _any_ improvements. User and developer feedback, flavored with the information in the publicly available source code, have been tremendours sources of Linux and GPL software features and fixes. And one thing that I do as a developer is to publish my patches to the vendors, so that they can integrate them in their next release. (This happens several times a year for me: it's very gratifying, it saves me considerable time in setting up workarounds, and it looks very good on my annual performance reviews.)
15. Re:please be sure ... by AmberBlackCat · 2010-12-31 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  The interesting thing about that scenario is #3 is both (the argument for why you shouldn't complain about missing source code) and (the reason it would be good to have the source code).
16. Re:please be sure ... by WorBlux · 2010-12-31 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  If they don't release the code, you may find yourself in the position of a device which is unsupported, and not supportable without a lengthy and expensive reverse engineering process. If a company releases code you will be assured that the device is supportable indefinitely into the future.
  If it's just one tablet that you'll break before two years are up it's probably not a big deal, but if you are buying 10,000 of them for an important long-term application it makes a lot of difference. The difference between being at the mercy of the amount of energy and support a company will put into an old product, and weather the company will even be around any more, as opposed to the option of being able to provide support and update in-house if necessary
  Also if you get the GPL device it's possible and even probable that someone will port the device to alternative uses so you can re purpose it if you don't need it for the original purpose.
  Bludgening companies around with the GPL isn't nice, and would cost a lot of public support. The whole idea and point of the GPL was that bludgeoning people around with copyright and patents like some companies do isn't very nice. It's a way to fight fire with fire, but all being said, it's just better to avoid lighting fires that you might have to fight later in the first place.
  It's like how Microsoft doesn't go after individuals that pirate windows at home or school. They mainly go after distributors and businesses because they don't want the publicity of taking grandpa Joe's house because his techie 14-year old grandnephew thought it would be nice to give him and upgrade with a pirated copy from bit-torrent. Looking the other way helps FOSS and the GPL come into the public awareness, whereas perusing a multi-billion dollar copyright suit would scare the living daylights out of vendors and manufacturers so much that they'd never touch and open source kernel and interface again.
17. Re:please be sure ... by WorBlux · 2010-12-31 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  150,000 dollar times even a modest 250,000 devices sold.... 37 Billion dollars.
18. Re:please be sure ... by aristotle-dude · 2010-12-31 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming that you personally don't care about the ability to see and modify the source to the whole operating system on your phone, perhaps it would be nice to avoid this scenario:
  1) You buy GPL-violating tablet from no-name company.
  2) Company gets sued or threatened.
  3) Company disappears and your device no longer has any support.
  Get's sued by whom and where? Threatened? Most of these companies are located in China. China is notoriously lax concerning knockoffs and piracy. Good luck getting any money from that no name company. They can just reincorporate under a new name a week later and you won't get a single red cent from them.
  
  --
  Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
19. Re:please be sure ... by Osgeld · 2010-12-31 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno, Zenith has been making PC's since the dawn of XT clones, that is a pretty long haul
Make Sources Available by bazald · 2010-12-30 19:39 · Score: 1

I believe that what you mean to say is that the distributor must either include their sources or make a clear offer to their customers to provide them on demand. They needn't provide them to the general public. Simply being willing to ship the sources to their customers for a nominal fee would meet the GPL requirement. If the tablets are running vanilla android (which admittedly, they probably aren't), it would be trivial to make it easier for people to just download the sources from Google.
What is most important here is that the tablet vendors may be making changes to GPL sources and not yet making them available. It is important for us to have control over our devices that they open up, but it would be better still for the community if they stuck with 100% vanilla android instead.

--
Insert self-referential sig here.
1. Re:Make Sources Available by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 19:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  the distributor must either include their sources or make a clear offer to their customers to provide them on demand. They needn't provide them to the general public.
  If they ship the source with the binary, then they do not have to provide the source to anyone else. If they don't ship the source with the binary, then they must make the source available to anyone who has a copy of the binary, not just their direct customers (or really anyone under certain circumstances). The GPLv2 was clearer in that regard: For commercial distribution, either ship with source or make available to "any third party". (The first party is who offers the license, the second party accepts it, so "any third party" is the general public). It is much preferable for distributors to ship with source. It fulfills their obligations under the GPL in an instant. Otherwise they have to keep the matching source available for at least three years, or longer if the product is maintained longer, and they have to give it to anyone who wants it. Distributors, ship the source, it's the easy way.
May charge *any* price, not nominal by perpenso · 2010-12-30 19:50 · Score: 1

Simply being willing to ship the sources to their customers for a nominal fee would meet the GPL requirement.
"You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee." http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
1. Re:May charge *any* price, not nominal by bazald · 2010-12-30 19:58 · Score: 1
  
  "You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee."
  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
  That's true for the product+source, but not for the source alone:
  6.b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
  (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a
  written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as
  long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product
  model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a
  copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the
  product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical
  medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no
  more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this
  conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the
  Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
  
  --
  Insert self-referential sig here.
2. Re:May charge *any* price, not nominal by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 20:09 · Score: 0
  
  Not what we're talking about. You may indeed charge any price, but only for a bundle of the binary and the source distributed together (or source alone, with no prior distribution of a binary). If you distribute the binary and only offer to provide the source, then you may only charge "reasonable cost" for the separate distribution of the source.
3. Re:May charge *any* price, not nominal by jeremyp · 2010-12-30 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong GPL. The Linux kernel is distributed under v2.
  
  --
  All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
4. Re:May charge *any* price, not nominal by icebike · 2010-12-30 21:06 · Score: 1
  
  GPLv3 is the wrong license I believe.
  Android is GPLv2 and Apache 2.0.
  http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Not entirely accurate by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 19:50 · Score: 0

The source for the Coby MID7015 was released earlier this week.
1. Re:Not entirely accurate by mjg59 · 2010-12-30 19:55 · Score: 2
  
  By Coby? Telechips released their reference kernel earlier this month, but I've seen no indication that Coby are fulfilling their obligations.
2. Re:Not entirely accurate by aristotle-dude · 2010-12-31 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  By Coby? Telechips released their reference kernel earlier this month, but I've seen no indication that Coby are fulfilling their obligations.
  Did Coby modify any source? Do you have any proof? Are you a lawyer?
  
  --
  Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
3. Re:Not entirely accurate by mjg59 · 2010-12-31 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think it makes any difference whether or not they modified it?
Source only for customers, not third parties by perpenso · 2010-12-30 19:57 · Score: 2

The Google reference kernel code doesn't contain the driver code for any of these tablets, and the vast majority of them are based on SoC platforms that don't exist at all in the Google code. The tablet vendors can't simply point at the Google repositories, they're obliged to either ship the source with the devices or provide a written offer to provide the source to any third party on request.
No. they only have to provide source to their customers, not to any third party.
1. Re:Source only for customers, not third parties by mjg59 · 2010-12-30 20:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Quoting from the GPL v2 section 3(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"
  You don't have to choose that option - you can use 3(a) instead, but that means that the source has to be with the device when you sell it.
2. Re:Source only for customers, not third parties by perpenso · 2010-12-30 20:17 · Score: 1
  
  Quoting from the GPL v2 section 3(b):
  "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party...
  
  I think the GPL v3 6b says you only have to provide the source to someone who possesses the device containing the GPL'd code.
  
  "Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code ..."
3. Re:Source only for customers, not third parties by mjg59 · 2010-12-30 20:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but given that the kernel is under GPLv2 (not v2 or later), what GPLv3 says isn't terribly relevant...
  Even then, the written offer must be good for anyone who obtains the object code. I download a firmware image from your site? You're obliged to give me source on request. One of your customers downloads a firmware image and then gives it to me? The same applies.There's no point at which it's limited to your customers.
4. Re:Source only for customers, not third parties by tukang · 2010-12-30 21:08 · Score: 1
  
  Please correct me if I'm wrong: If a customer downloads a firmware image from my site, then yes, I'm obliged to provide the source to that customer. But my obligation is only to provide the source to those who get the binaries directly from me. If the customer turns around and gives you a copy of the firmware then *they* must provide you with the source - not me.
5. Re:Source only for customers, not third parties by Arlet · 2010-12-30 22:05 · Score: 2
  
  Technically correct, but it's much more practical to put the source code on a public HTTP or FTP server where anybody can get it. Any extra effort to only allow your own customers is a waste of time and money.
6. Re:Source only for customers, not third parties by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 22:09 · Score: 0
  
  Well, the GPLv3 was largely supposed to be a CLARIFICATION of GPLv2.
7. Re:Source only for customers, not third parties by mjg59 · 2010-12-31 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  No. If you distribute under 3(b), then as long as I'm not distributing commercially I can distribute under 3(c) and pass on the written offer - which still leaves you responsible for providing the source.
8. Re:Source only for customers, not third parties by Minwee · 2010-12-31 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  I think the GPL v3 6b says you only have to provide the source to someone who possesses the device containing the GPL'd code.
  That's not what "a written offer [...] to give any third party [...] a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code" means. If you choose the written offer route then it has to be good for everybody.
9. Re:Source only for customers, not third parties by perpenso · 2010-12-31 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  I think the GPL v3 6b says you only have to provide the source to someone who possesses the device containing the GPL'd code.
  That's not what "a written offer [...] to give any third party [...] a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code" means. If you choose the written offer route then it has to be good for everybody.
  The section you link to only says you have to license *everyone*, it then explicitly say you have to do nothing else.
  
  "Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. “All third parties” means absolutely everyone—but this does not require you to do anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version."
10. Re:Source only for customers, not third parties by Minwee · 2011-01-04 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, this is what it says (emphasis my own):
  If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.
  If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
  The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.
  Perhaps you went on to read the answer to the next question, which is not about providing the "written offer of source code" at all.
must only provide source on demand by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 19:58 · Score: 0

only if you request it must they make it available, yes?
1. Re:must only provide source on demand by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 20:38 · Score: 0
  
  only if you request it must they make it available, yes?
  Only if you request it must they provide it to you. They are required to make it available under the terms of GPL. They are not required to distribute it along with the binaries.
  Just to be clear: "available" means you can get it by requesting it from them, - they accept responsibility for providing you a copy, even if they get a third party to actually send it.
GPL compliant mobile phones? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 20:17 · Score: 0

Did anybody make a list of GPL compliant linux based mobile phones?
Owner of tablet by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 20:26 · Score: 0

As an owner of a cheap Telechips tablet I can tell you firsthand.
Close source has essentially kept devs from making a running Froyo that is installable on this tablet.
There is a Cyanogenmod 2.2 but its no where near production.
Shipping source isn't required by fdearl · 2010-12-30 22:06 · Score: 1

GPL states you must make the source code available, and it is, on developer.android.org
Depending on licenses of libraries, any custom interfaces probably don't require source code being shipped either, since it is probably all LGPL or BSD/Apache.
1. Re:Shipping source isn't required by Tapewolf · 2010-12-30 23:53 · Score: 1
  
  GPL states you must make the source code available, and it is, on developer.android.org
  On many of these machines the OEM has modified the kernel, e.g. to make the CPU report a higher frequency than it actually uses, and also to support their weird hardware.
  So yes, while you could run stock Debian on a ZT180 or something, you would likely have to do without things like sound, networking and the touchscreen etc.
  I can't remember the specifics for what is missing on the ZT180, but it is a big problem for people who want to add new drivers, run Debian etc. I now run mine on a Debian someone made with the Zenithink kernel, and it is significantly more stable like that than it was with their crocked Android implementation. However, it doesn't have the USB mass storage driver and it's not going to be easy to add it without the source.
src isn't only for customers, also for 3rd parties by cas2000 · 2010-12-30 22:22 · Score: 1

i think that would be covered by "...to give anyone who possesses the object code..."
if you distribute the object code, you're obligated to give it to ANYONE who posessess the object code, no matter how they obtained it.
that's what v3 of the GPL says.
the GPLv2 is even less limited in who you're obligated to give the source code to - that says "...to give any third party..."
Take take take by gilesjuk · 2010-12-30 22:30 · Score: 2

That sums up most Android vendors, they develop their own GUIs and improvements and don't give much or anything back to the project.
Hardly in the spirit of open source is it?
1. Re:Take take take by suv4x4 · 2010-12-30 23:56 · Score: 0
  
  That sums up most Android vendors, they develop their own GUIs and improvements and don't give much or anything back to the project.
  Hardly in the spirit of open source is it?
  If I understand correctly, the spirit of open source goes like this:
  A community of loudmouths who have not contributed a line of code to Android, are constantly complaining that those who *are* involved with producing Android software/hardware do not "give back" enough.
  If anyone dares to use and ship Android devices, they should, just in case, be blamed of eating babies until proven innocent.
  Am I doing it right?
2. Re:Take take take by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 00:52 · Score: 0
  
  That sums up most Android vendors, they develop their own GUIs and improvements and don't give much or anything back to the project.
  Hardly in the spirit of open source is it?
  Welcome to the world of business.
  It is their competitive advantage to hang on to their improvements, it's what gives them an edge over the competition.
  As for the GPL, it's never been tested in court, so any company would look at it and say "we won't be caught, even if we do, it's unlikely to do any real damage"
3. Re:Take take take by obarel · 2010-12-31 00:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Even though I have not contributed one line of code, I'm still affected by it as a software developer. I earn my living by writing software for my company. I do not use GPL because I know it's illegal not to publish the code, and my company cannot afford to publish our code, due to competition.
  This means that my company invests time and money (which directly affects my livelihood due to competition) into software development, while other, larger companies just take GPL'ed code and use it without fear (and without any intention to release their code). So they have an unfair advantage over my company. It's unfair, because what they do is illegal. Not "mildly" illegal, like taking candy from a baby (= taking code from whining hippy spare-time developers), but very illegal, like stealing code from a competitor. Basically this business practice harms competition, and indirectly it also harms the consumer - big companies destroy their competiton by illegal means, and the consumer is left with less choice.
  GPL has a purpose - to make the code, changes and derivatives available to everybody. Using it in other ways gives big companies unfair advantage, which is in many places an illegal practice (like bribing politicians or abusing public resources with impunity). Yes, it's the way of the world, but many people are angry about corrupt politicians even if they are not directly affected.
4. Re:Take take take by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 05:06 · Score: 0
  
  the GPL2, which the kernel is under doesn't force anyone to distribute the code along with the product, only to make the source available upon request in one way or another (public FTP. private FTP, email attachment, download, pay us and we send you an optic disk, pay us and we send you the code on paper, etc). Nothing stops you or anyone else from requesting the code, then publishing it yourself.
  Except people don't do that they expect to be spoon fed and whine about fictional non-compliance when they don't get it.
  Enough of this whiney "spirit" of the nonsense, you want to be spoon fed, mandate in the license and get it done with.
  Have you asked these "big bad bullies" for the code? Have they refused?
  If you answer "No" to either of these questions, then nobody is stealing anything, and you're just being a whining hippy full-time developer rather than the spare-time variety. Suck it up, do what needs to be done and get on with your life.
5. Re:Take take take by DCFusor · 2010-12-31 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  If the code you're writing is for internal use only, you don't have to publish your source and changes. That sounds like FUD and isn't what GPL is about. If you're selling software that contains GPL stuff, well then, that's another issue. GPL only kicks in if you distribute the code. If you merely use it, that's another story.
  One company I developed for used a Linux opsys for a video surveillance system on COTS hardware. They didn't change the GPL code (no need it worked fine as is), just added applications, which they didn't have to make available under GPL. I got paid, no one has complained, where's the beef?
  Someone seems to have either bought into the idea the GPL is utterly viral, or is trying to perpetuate FUD here.
  
  --
  Why guess when you can know? Measure!
6. Re:Take take take by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sorry but I don't understand your complaint.
  Let me get this straight, you claimed GPL affects you because:
  1. You chose not to use it
  2. Other companies are ILLEGALLY using it.
  3. Therefore it is unfair for your company because you are doing something legal while your competitors are not.
  I have trouble understanding how the third point is a specific problem to GPL.
  It is common sense that any company operating illegally ALWAYS has an unfair advantage over those that operate legally.
  I feel that you are desperately trying to attribute the cause of competitive disadvantage to GPL. In other words, you're blaming the gun, instead of those that pull the trigger.
7. Re:Take take take by obarel · 2010-12-31 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, my company sells software. If we use a 3rd party software component, it has to have the right licence. In fact, our customers insist that we don't use GPL, because they don't want to find themselves in trouble.
  FUD or not, if your customer says "make sure you don't use GPL'ed modules and libraries" then you make sure or you find yourself out of business.
  Also, using a GPL'ed library to build an application and not releasing the code (of the application) goes against the licence. Check out http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL and find out for yourself. If you write software for a rocket launcher and link it against busybox, you have to release the rocket launching code. You may not like the word "viral", but it's a fairly accurate description.
8. Re:Take take take by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  So contribute two lines of documentation to the open source projects, and then initiate a lawsuit against the companies that are violating the GPL. Your competitors will then have to open up their code (which means you can look at it all you want), and you can go back to developing your company's products without using the GPL.
  Use the GPL to your advantage, as well as how it was originally intended to be used; don't just sit around and complain about competing with companies that violate the GPL.
9. Re:Take take take by hedwards · 2011-01-01 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  That's the trade off, if you're company is in that situation, then you'd be better off using code that's BSD or MIT licensed. Using a license like that doesn't prevent you from contributing back, but it would allow you to keep portions or all of the custom code secret if you need to, and without having to worry about the ramifications of being caught doing it.
  
  GPL is nice for many things, but it's hardly without drawback. My personal feeling is that if you don't want to be bound by it, do the right thing and don't use code licensed under it.
10. Re:Take take take by obarel · 2011-01-01 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  My personal feeling is that if you don't want to be bound by it, do the right thing and don't use code licensed under it.
  Absolutely! Just because you're not paying money it doesn't mean "do whatever you want with it" (to be honest, it should probably be the exact opposite - if I pay for it I should be allowed to do more with it, e.g. take it apart and learn from it, modify and customise it etc. That's not how reality works, though).
  Even BSD has some restrictions, and there are many devices (for example the PS3) that acknowlegement libjpeg, openSSL, FreeType etc. as described in the licence.
  Unfortunately in many cases the decision is not based on "what should we do" but on "what can we get away with, given our legal department's budget", which is simply wrong in my opinion.
Caveat Emptor by ChunderDownunder · 2010-12-30 22:47 · Score: 1

Red Hat doesn't have the resources, nor even the incentive to pursue GPL violation lawsuits for Android - Google is the custodian here. Now you may argue it is Google's job to do this but they, for whatever reason, ain't.
If you buy a device, without the protection of the GPL, don't expect support or updates from your cheap Chinese knock-off. i.e. Your Android version may be stuck at 2.3 for the life of the device. Which if you are content to be stuck in 2010 for the next 3 years, or however you long you envisage keeping it, so be it.
Buying GPL-friendly offers the protection that one day you *could* roll-your-own long after vendor updates have disappeared. New releases and performance increases aside, security updates are a consideration.
Garrett has been kind enough to publish a list of non-compliant hardware. If you choose to ignore that list, good luck to you sir!
1. Re:Caveat Emptor by Osgeld · 2010-12-31 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  nah I will just avoid the whole mess and get a windows or I tab
Re:src isn't only for customers, also for 3rd part by noidentity · 2010-12-30 23:47 · Score: 1

i think that would be covered by "...to give anyone who possesses the object code..."
if you distribute the object code, you're obligated to give it to ANYONE who posessess the object code, no matter how they obtained it.

But... isn't it the obligation of the person who gave YOU the code to provide the source? So if a company sells tablet to X, with offer for source, then X gives object code to Y, it seems it's X's obligation to give Y the source code, not the company. At the very least, the company may not have the resources to give it to everyone X gives the object code to, only to X.
Android is not GPL by Cyko_01 · 2010-12-31 00:19 · Score: 1

according to wikipedia android is under the apache licence which means that modified versions of the software do not need to be distributed under the same licence
1. Re:Android is not GPL by TeknoHog · 2010-12-31 00:27 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  However, Android uses the Linux kernel, which is under GPL v2.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
2. Re:Android is not GPL by owlstead · 2010-12-31 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  So changes to the kernel have to be accompanied by the source code, possibly on request.
3. Re:Android is not GPL by aristotle-dude · 2010-12-31 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  However, Android uses the Linux kernel, which is under GPL v2.
  Right and if the modifications have absolutely nothing to do with the kernel or drivers then there is no obligation. If all of their modifications are to the "Android" layer sitting on top then there is no GPL V2 to worry about.
  
  --
  Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
4. Re:Android is not GPL by mjg59 · 2010-12-31 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  "Right and if the modifications have absolutely nothing to do with the kernel or drivers then there is no obligation."
  No. You must provide either the source or a written offer to provide the source to any third party on request regardless of whether you've modified the GPLed material or not.
Re:src isn't only for customers, also for 3rd part by gnasher719 · 2010-12-31 01:25 · Score: 1

But... isn't it the obligation of the person who gave YOU the code to provide the source? So if a company sells tablet to X, with offer for source, then X gives object code to Y, it seems it's X's obligation to give Y the source code, not the company. At the very least, the company may not have the resources to give it to everyone X gives the object code to, only to X.
Both. "A company" has to give the source code to anyone who receives the object code, which includes X and everyone that X gives the object code to and everyone those people pass the source code on to. X for the same reasons has to give the source code to anyone they gave the object code to and so on. If I buy a tablet from X and give the object code to you, then "the company", X, and I, all three have the obligation to give you the source code.
Re:src isn't only for customers, also for 3rd part by cas2000 · 2010-12-31 01:31 · Score: 1

yes, the person who gave you the code also has that obligation. but that doesn't relieve the original distributor of their obligation.
in your example, both the company AND X have the obligation to provide/make-available the source to Y
btw, it's irrelevant whether the company has the resources to provide the source to everyone - same as it's irrelevant whether you have the resources to pay for the food you order in a restaurant....you have an obligation to pay regardless
User space by Midnight+Thunder · 2010-12-31 05:15 · Score: 1

If all the changes done are only in user space then none of these companies have anything to worry about. If they aren't then they should either consider releasing that code or moving that code into user space. Either way they should be documenting the availability of the base source code.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Re:src isn't only for customers, also for 3rd part by tukang · 2010-12-31 05:27 · Score: 1

"...to give anyone who possesses the object code..."
But that's only if you provide an offer instead of a copy of the source. If you accompany each binary with a source then your obligation ends there (gpl 3 6a, gpl 2 3a).
it's irrelevant whether the company has the resources to provide the source to everyone
gpl 2 specifically allows to charge to recover resources used in providing the source. gpl 3 has a similar provision but only if the source is distributed on physical media.
Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 05:54 · Score: 0

Most informative comment in this thread. Thanks, Fnkmaster.
How much GPLv3 software is in Android? by tepples · 2010-12-31 06:30 · Score: 1

But how much GPLv3 software is in the Android operating system? Linux itself is GPLv2, and much of the userspace is Apache licensed.
how about phones by josepha48 · 2010-12-31 06:48 · Score: 1

Are the phone makers any better when it comes to GPL compliance?
So does the GPL cover things like when a company like Motorola or Samsung add their custom UI on top of android? Do they release the kernel source changes too?

--
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
1. Re:how about phones by bieber · 2010-12-31 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  If their custom UI is a separate application, then it is not covered. Kernel modifications most certainly are.
Different compilers by tepples · 2011-01-03 03:24 · Score: 1

if I take Google's source and build binaries with it, and those binaries differ from the ones shipping on your device, it's not the same source code
Not necessarily. If I compile the same source code of a Windows program with MinGW and Microsoft Visual C++ Express, or with MinGW based on older or newer versions of GCC, I'll get different binaries.
1. Re:Different compilers by hacker · 2011-01-03 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  The point is, if I'm using the tools you're using, and using the same source, I should be producing the same binaries (functionally the same, not byte-for-byte identical).
Different tools by tepples · 2011-01-03 04:50 · Score: 1

The point is, if I'm using the tools you're using
And my point is, this can't easily be guaranteed. The ARM compilers claimed to have stronger optimization than GCC, such as Green Hills tools, are priced out of the range of most end users.

functionally the same
This is halting-complete to verify.