Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone can give me some info on a questionable topic:
I reasontly bought a Elitegroup (ECS) laptop distributed with Thiz Linux. The distro CDs did not contain the kernel source, so I requested it from ECS. They refused to give me the code.
This code is modified by them in order to fully support the hardware inside the machine. Isn't it illeagal to refuse publishing a GPLed code?
Best Regards,
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 10:37:36AM +0000, Alexander Popov wrote:
I was wondering if anyone can give me some info on a questionable topic:
I reasontly bought a Elitegroup (ECS) laptop distributed with Thiz Linux. The distro CDs did not contain the kernel source, so I requested it from ECS. They refused to give me the code.
This code is modified by them in order to fully support the hardware inside the machine. Isn't it illeagal to refuse publishing a GPLed code?
If they distributed the binary of a GPLed software to you, then you can ask them for the source which they *must* give you (eventually for a fee to cover physical reproduction costs) to comply with the terms of the GNU GPL. If they refuse then they must stop from distributing the binary.
However IIRC Linus, in his great wisdom :-((, chose to allow proprietary "modules" in the Linux kernel, so if their modifications are not really linked to the kernel, but distributed as a module, then they can refuse to distribute the source to you. On the other hand if their modification are really part of the kernel (vmlinuz) then they violate the GNU GPL.
bye,
Jerome Alet
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 10:03:28AM +0100, Jerome Alet wrote:
If they distributed the binary of a GPLed software to you, then you can ask them for the source which they *must* give you (eventually for a fee to cover physical reproduction costs) to comply with the terms of the GNU GPL. If they refuse then they must stop from distributing the binary.
I agree - I don't think they have a leg to stand on in that respect.
However IIRC Linus, in his great wisdom :-((, chose to allow proprietary "modules" in the Linux kernel
I don't think that's the case. There are obviously problems with the Linux licence - the version 2 only thing, for example - but there isn't anything which says you can link proprietary modules with the kernel.
He did say that he thought it would be possible to write a module that was not derived from the kernel, and therefore it's likely that it a) wouldn't infringe itself, and b) wouldn't infringe by contribution - I think in the case of nVidia drivers, etc., that might well be the case. I can't say that I think it would be common, though.
See: http://lwn.net/Articles/13066/
Cheers,
Alex.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 10:12:48AM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 10:03:28AM +0100, Jerome Alet wrote:
However IIRC Linus, in his great wisdom :-((, chose to allow proprietary "modules" in the Linux kernel
I don't think that's the case. There are obviously problems with the Linux licence - the version 2 only thing, for example - but there isn't anything which says you can link proprietary modules with the kernel.
He did say that he thought it would be possible to write a module that was not derived from the kernel, and therefore it's likely that it a) wouldn't infringe itself, and b) wouldn't infringe by contribution - I think in the case of nVidia drivers, etc., that might well be the case. I can't say that I think it would be common, though.
OK so I didn't remember correctly. Sorry.
bye, and thanks for the clarification
Jerome Alet
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 11:45:55AM +0100, Jerome Alet wrote:
OK so I didn't remember correctly. Sorry.
To be honest, I'm not sure you have remembered incorrectly - I think perhaps Linus has 'modified' his position over time :)
Cheers,
Alex.
This code is modified by them in order to fully support the hardware inside the machine. Isn't it illeagal to refuse publishing a GPLed code?
Worse. It's illegal to _not_ release it together with the binary. The only allowed way to not distribute source code is including the legally binding letter as for GPL.3b. Asking politely is the best first move, though (like you did, it seems).
The point is that those resellers aren't the copyright holders on the software they distribute, so they are bound by license terms set forth by copyright holders. The same problem you have with the kernel, though, applies to every other software package they distribute but don't write; and most of them are just as GPL as the kernel is.
What they are allowed to do is distributing a customized X server and not give away source code (nor associated rights), since this is allowed by the copyright holders of the X server. The same applies for other packages with mit-style licenses, but X is still the biggest and most important such piece of code.
You are right, this is a license violation.
/alessandro
Hi Alexander,
Alexander Popov writes:
I reasontly bought a Elitegroup (ECS) laptop distributed with Thiz Linux. The distro CDs did not contain the kernel source, so I requested it from ECS. They refused to give me the code.
This code is modified by them in order to fully support the hardware inside the machine. Isn't it illeagal to refuse publishing a GPLed code?
You may want to take this up with the FSF in Boston. They have a guy there (Dave Turner) who works specifically on (possible) GPL license violations. I will send you his e-mail address in a private message.
Bye for now, Ward.