On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 07:20:04 +0200, Armijn wrote in message <[email protected]>:
> On 08/17/2013 03:06 AM, Charlie Brady wrote: > > > > I think the screen which says there is GPL code is prima facie > > evidence that there *is* GPL code. I would recommend skipping the > > "proof" step and just pursue the course of getting access to the > > source code (if that is the object). > > I know of plenty of vendors that have boiler plate manuals/language > that has a GPL statement, without any GPL code present in the system > (there was a thread about this on the other list a week or so ago). > Besides I think that Matt already is one or two steps further, as he > tried getting to code by telling them "hey, there is this GPL > statement here" and get no code. ..another can of worms opening, is, what happens next time Caddilac Cue owners wanna buy a car, can they sell or trade in their GPL binary ride with no source Caddilac without losing their license to Linux etc GPLv2 software? ..or, does the info screen GPL statement satisfy GPLv2's §3c for Matt when he want's to sell or trade in his car? ..Matt's attempts to get his source code suggests he never got that with the car he bought, and GM et al are stuck with §3a and §3b, so my question to Matt is, did you get a written offer of source code with your car under the GPLv2's §3b? -- ..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.
