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

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.