>> TJ wrote at 06:21 (EDT) on Sunday: >>>> As I understood it the GPL precludes distributors from imposing >>>> additional terms; surely that includes imposing a legal agreement in >>>> order to obtain the source? > On 18/08/13 02:45, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: >> You're correct that imposing additional restrictions on distribution is >> prohibited by GPLv2§6. However, I didn't see anything in that >> download agreement that imposed an additional restriction. Which >> part do you think imposed an additional restriction? TJ wrote at 19:55 (EDT) on Sunday: > "...and all such warranties, express or implied, are hereby > disclaimed, including, without limitation, warranties of > merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose accuracy, > completeness.."
The above reads to me as compatible with the terms GPLv2§11 and GPLv2§12. Do you find some contradiction between the text quoted above and those sections? (Note that GPLv3§7(a) makes this sort of compatibility analysis of warranty disclaimers even easier.) > which made me immediately wonder what a user's recourse would be if > the download(s) from the Samsung open source centre are incomplete. It > would seem to leave users without a remedy to obtain the It seems to me that it's still copyright infringement if they don't comply with copyright, regardless of warranties being disclaimed. Are you aware of some regulation or law in some jurisdiction which would cause that not to be true? Also, in the alternative, note that you don't get the binaries from that site, only the sources. Thus, distribution of the binaries is not covered by that specific warranty disclaimer anyway (although I suspect there's a similar warranty disclaimer with Samsung's products). > Indeed, after Armijn made me aware of it that is what I did, but there > was no mention of that repository in the SFLC press release. I am not aware of any SFLC press release on this matter, nor of any work done by SFLC on this matter. To my knowledge and belief, SFLC is not involved in enforcement of GPL for Linux, BusyBox, nor Samba. Perhaps you mean the press release by Conservancy, which is a different organization entirely from SFLC (although SFLC used to be Conservancy's lawyers, a long time ago)? Perhaps the fact that SFLC used to be, long ago, Conservancy's law firm is what has you confused here? Anyway, I want to note clearly that the git repository isn't mentioned in Conservancy's press statement because I did that work on my own. I'm personally distributing that software, not Conservancy. (Not that Conservancy wouldn't do so, it's just that Conservancy didn't, *I* did.) Anyway, I see no reason not to download the sources from Samsung's website, as explained above. I'd been planning to make a personal blog post about the git repository and other personal thoughts on this matter, but I haven't gotten the tuits yet. -- -- bkuhn
