Possible GPL Violation?

An Anonymous Coward wrote to inform us of a new Chinese Linux distro, Blue Point Linux 1.0RC, which includes support for Chinese characters. The bad news is the developers, who have based their effort on Red Hat's are alleged to have forgotten to include the modified kernel source. Coward asks: "Don't they violate the GPL?". Some people over at the BP Forum apparently have some thoughts. What do you think: is this against the terms of the GPL? (Can someone translate this?)

Comments

Jumping the Gun

[NovaX]

wow.. take a minute to think for a second. The GPL doesn't require the code be with the product, but be available when requested, at a fee of whatever is needed to pay transportation costs (or free). That means if these guys simply put an ftp up with the modified code, and let you know its availalbe, they shouldn't have a problem. Here's my proof.. (I really hate /. always jumping the gun..). From v1 of the GPL (cuz I was just looking at it.. thanks RMS and neelakanth (is it neel?) for finding v1 for me)...

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a portion or derivative of it, under Paragraph 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Paragraphs 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 Paragraphs 1 and 2 above; or,

b) accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party free (except for a nominal charge for the cost of distribution) a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above; or,

c) accompany it with the information you received as to where the corresponding source code may be obtained. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form alone.)

How to tell if there's really a GPL violation

[Bruce Perens]

First, get a copy of the binary software. Preferrably you should get it directly from the manufacturer, and in a nation where you have a hope of bringing a lawsuit to enforce the GPL. The United States would be best for this.

After you have gotten a copy of the binary software, you must see if there is source code for all GPL software, or if there is a clear written offer for the source code distributed along with the binary software (perhaps on the CD itself). If neither of these exist, the GPL is being violated.

Then, you should contact the manufacturer and ask for source code (for the kernel modifications, or whatever). Then if you don't get the source code, that's a GPL violation too.

Don't listen to anyone who calls it "whining" to protest a GPL violation. Remember that the Linux kernel and applications are copyrighted property of some thousands of contributors, and they have a right to enforce their license, which requires that source code be distributed upon request.

Under the GPL, if source code is not distributed with the product, the distributor of the binary code must give source code to anyone who requests it, not just people who have received the binary code. But we must see a copy of the binary product to determine conclusively whether or not source code is distributed.

Thanks

Bruce Perens

discussion about GPL in BP forum

[Anonymous Coward]

ok, i browsed through the bp forum and only found
one thread relating to the GPL violation. here's
a rough translation: ( the words in parentheses
are added by myself )

title: i'm very dissapointed...
name: blue
the kernel source being close-source already
voilates the GPL. the chinesenization
technology is for "bp linux" only is also a
bad since a lot of people like mandrake,
openlinux, slackware, turbolinux, redhat,
debian ... no to mention that you have
promised (opensource) before... ok i know
promises are not enforced by law, and doing
opensouce in china is very difficult, but i
believe the only way to continue the
development is to play by the opensource rules.
is making some rpm ( for other distributions )
really so hard? how about the CLE project in
taiwan? they are also very complete.
bp is really the most techanically suited
chinese solution right now, and i don't want
to see it being ruined by short-sightedness.

title: Re. i'm very dissapointed.
name: hahalee

yeah, look at CLE 0.9 -- already a few hundred
Megabytes. A lot need to be modified in a
distribution, like the hz de/coding in Pine,
debug in kmail and system scripts etc... we can't
depend on other distributors to maintain the
packages. anyway, if you like the distribution
like the preview version, feel free to continue
using it.

about opensource, what we promised was to include
source in the release version. this is just a
relatively stable debug version. the opensource
theory ... (ok, there's some rambling here and
i'm tired of translation ).

------------------------------------------------ -

so basically i think this is just like the Corel
Beta version thing. ghost already left a message
in bp forum informing the developers that they
have made slashdot headline from GPL violation.
i'm sure this will be resolved very soon.

Brickhouse in violation also?

[schematic]

Over at 3rd Pig they've got a RedHat kernel (from the 4.1 distro i believe) that's been hacked up to use process based security. They've been running a public test and haven't released the code even though they have been asked. I don't know if they give you the source when you purchase it, but at the price they charge (~$10k+) i don't think i'll find out.

I would think that if they modified a linux kernel, they would have to release the source. (Don't flame me as i haven't really read up on the liscences and i'm just expressing my opinion.)