Re: Advice for initial contact
Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > I suggest anyway you mail your evidence over to me at > and we'll look into it with you. It's > better not to accuse a company publicly without at least investigating > the facts in detail first and trying to talk to them privately first. > >> What would be the recommended way to address this situation? > > Report the GPL violation to someone able to enforce is the best advice. > I'm willing to help. I look forward to your private email on it. I just sent you a mail with all the details!
Re: Advice for initial contact
On 05/12/2014 09:24 PM, Julius Schwartzenberg wrote: Could you tell me a bit more about this? I have the device itself for much longer than 3 years. I only recently found out it's based on Linux. The firmware update images are still available on their website though. Of course I hope the company will try to comply with the GP License once they are pointed out that they distributed the software without any license. Thanks! Julius As others have mentioned - you could still try to contact them. They have a couple of options. The company in principle may choose to distribute the code without a licence, in which case you have no rights other than rights that come from the original author to use the code, or various consumer rights legislation (they sold you a partially broken thing in that it has unlicenced software on it). They can either - as I understand it - choose to act as if they meant to comply with the GPL -and give you the code, or that they would have complied - and had meant to - but that it's been 3 years since distribution. You have very limited remedy if they choose not to distribute - generally the only ones with standing to take action would be the copyright holders. (This sort-of-assumes that it goes past their first-level support people)
Re: Advice for initial contact
I don't want to sound too pollyanna here, but you should email the company or someone you can find that works there. Sometimes it works out okay, even for an older device. Chris On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Julius Schwartzenberg < [email protected]> wrote: > Ian Stirling wrote: > > On 05/10/2014 04:11 PM, Julius Schwartzenberg wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I came across a GPL violation and I'd like to ask for some advice on the > >> initial contact with the company. > > > >> The device is (was) sold in two configurations, one more expensive than > >> the other. This difference is only made by the software and by stickers > >> on the device. Access to the software would probably enable changing the > >> cheaper version (which I have) into the more expensive version. > > > > First would be to check the date. > > If it's been 3 years since the distribution happened - then there is no > > obligation under the GPL to give you anything. > > Could you tell me a bit more about this? I have the device itself for > much longer than 3 years. I only recently found out it's based on Linux. > The firmware update images are still available on their website though. > > Of course I hope the company will try to comply with the GP License once > they are pointed out that they distributed the software without any > license. > > Thanks! > Julius > > -- Director of atypical intellectual property, Google Inc. Our open source and developer programs can be found at http://developers.google.com/open-source/ Site, Bio, Pics: http://dibona.com Google Plus: https://google.com/+cdibona Twitter: @cdibona
Re: Advice for initial contact
Ian Stirling wrote: > On 05/10/2014 04:11 PM, Julius Schwartzenberg wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I came across a GPL violation and I'd like to ask for some advice on the >> initial contact with the company. > >> The device is (was) sold in two configurations, one more expensive than >> the other. This difference is only made by the software and by stickers >> on the device. Access to the software would probably enable changing the >> cheaper version (which I have) into the more expensive version. > > First would be to check the date. > If it's been 3 years since the distribution happened - then there is no > obligation under the GPL to give you anything. Could you tell me a bit more about this? I have the device itself for much longer than 3 years. I only recently found out it's based on Linux. The firmware update images are still available on their website though. Of course I hope the company will try to comply with the GP License once they are pointed out that they distributed the software without any license. Thanks! Julius
Re: Advice for initial contact
Ian Stirling wrote: > First would be to check the date. If it's been 3 years since the > distribution happened - then there is no obligation under the GPL to give > you anything. That's too glib of an answer in a case like this. If the violator indeed made no-source-nor-offer, they infringed copyright and they are prohibited from future distribution of Linux indefinitely. Your point would only be valid if they'd made a legitimate offer for source *and* had complied in all other ways *and* were no longer distributing the product nor firmware nor any copy of Linux anywhere (e.g., if they went out of business). We admittedly don't know the facts here: I haven't even seen enough evidence yet to know if a GPL violation actually occurred at all. -- bkuhn
Re: Advice for initial contact
Julius Schwartzenberg wrote: > I previously mailed with Armijn about this Armijn is retired from gpl-violations.org now, so he probably doesn't have too much time to help. http://gpl-violations.org/news/20120805-armijn_retires.html Also, Harald is busy with his other (important) work so he hasn't been working on GPL enforcement for the last few years AFAIK. > A few strings from the Linux kernel in the firmware update are already > visible when running it through strings, but they have been modified to > not mention Linux. Are you sure it's really Linux for sure? I've noted that some strings can be quite common, so a few similar strings isn't definitive. I suggest anyway you mail your evidence over to me at and we'll look into it with you. It's better not to accuse a company publicly without at least investigating the facts in detail first and trying to talk to them privately first. > What would be the recommended way to address this situation? Report the GPL violation to someone able to enforce is the best advice. I'm willing to help. I look forward to your private email on it. -- bkuhn
Re: Advice for initial contact
On Sun, 11 May 2014 20:01:55 +0100, Ian wrote in message <[email protected]>: > > On 05/10/2014 04:11 PM, Julius Schwartzenberg wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I came across a GPL violation and I'd like to ask for some advice > > on the initial contact with the company. > > > The device is (was) sold in two configurations, one more expensive > > than the other. This difference is only made by the software and by > > stickers on the device. Access to the software would probably > > enable changing the cheaper version (which I have) into the more > > expensive version. > > First would be to check the date. > If it's been 3 years since the distribution happened - then there is > no obligation under the GPL to give you anything. ..that leaves the copyright infringement, which here sounds _intentional_ and possibly a criminal infringement case. ;o) -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case.
Re: Advice for initial contact
On 05/10/2014 04:11 PM, Julius Schwartzenberg wrote: Hi, I came across a GPL violation and I'd like to ask for some advice on the initial contact with the company. The device is (was) sold in two configurations, one more expensive than the other. This difference is only made by the software and by stickers on the device. Access to the software would probably enable changing the cheaper version (which I have) into the more expensive version. First would be to check the date. If it's been 3 years since the distribution happened - then there is no obligation under the GPL to give you anything.
