
HTC's delays in releasing Linux source code are unacceptable - gnufs
http://laforge.gnumonks.org/weblog/2011/12/24/#20111224-htc-delays-gpl
======
mjg59
What's especially interesting about the HTC case is that they'll habitually
trot out the 120 days claim (up from 90 days a year ago) right up until the
point where you actually start threatening legal action, at which point the
source will usually suddenly appear on their website. The impression I get is
that their delaying is nothing to do with any technical requirements on their
end - it's purely to keep the source private for longer out of some kind of
desire for competitive advantage.

------
themgt
This would be a perfect opportunity to get some lawyers in a room and try to
use the DMCA, son-of-SOPA (whatever passes), etc and try to bludgeon copyleft
infringers with the new IP-is-our-god-now laws. Especially if they're using a
website to distribute binaries without source - start sending takedown notices

~~~
mjg59
I've used the DMCA against GPL infringers (including the MPAA) - it generally
does work in terms of stopping further distribution, but it rarely results in
you getting the source code. The MPAA, for instance, never came into
compliance. They just stopped distributing.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Or, at least, stopped distributing publicly. For all you know, they continue
to distribute the toolkit in question privately, to people who don't bother
asking for source.

That said, I did find the DMCA application in question highly satisfying.
Thanks for that. :)

------
zitterbewegung
This is sort of an aside but what of anything of real value is in these source
code releases other than things that would only apply to HTC phones? Just
curious if there is anything in these patches that would apply to linux in
general.

~~~
defer
Not really no, most of it is Android's + Qualcomm's modifications (which are
usually public and easily available).

However, there are some HTC hardware-specific parts that are used mostly and
needed by any serious third party android distribution (like CyanogenMod).

------
ams6110
This is the problem with any license, contract, or other formal agreement. It
can say whatever, and one party or the other can simply ignore it. You have to
take them to court to force compliance, and since it's a civil matter you have
to pay your lawyers to do that.

It's the same technique insurance companies use to deny claims: they know you
will have to sue them to get them to pay, and this is so expensive and takes
so long that a lot of people will just give up.

------
pace
2-3 years ago I've been an huge HTC fan buying every 6 months a new HTC
handset until I realized that they want you to buy new handsets all the time
with their business model, Sense and reluctant update policy. The rest of the
crowd (Sony, Motorola, etc.) isn't better but the case HTC feels shady—these
guys shotgun tons of new phones per quarter to the market with many many
variations of Sense, their drivers, witholding sources, etc. to make it
impossible to update their crappy phones.

~~~
ableal
As a data point, I can add that I bought an HTC HD2 back in December 2009. It
had come out a couple of months before, and the hardware was very nice - it
stayed at the top until this year. However the software was Win Mobile 6.5; it
was occasionally updated, but the updates page went away (in a 404 way) back
in October 2011 or so.

So, about two years, and gone. Not quite fly-by-night, but not too
satisfactory.

(Workaround: using the original OS as bootloader to an Android from XDA-
developers ...)

------
JS_startup
This is a perfect example of the Free Software movement's lack of teeth. Even
if they do manage to get the money together to sue HTC, the company will have
no problem demonstrating the type of bureaucratic structure that would make
source code take four months to be released.

~~~
hub_
GPL enforcement is a lot of work with expensive lawyers and made harder when
you are not the copyright holder.

 _hint_ : this is why the FSF require copyright assignment for their project.
But they have barely any on the Linux kernel, the principal matter in the
Android source code.

~~~
tonfa
Harald owns the copyright for significant part of netfilter/iptables. So if
they distribute this part of the kernel, he won't have much trouble.

~~~
hub_
But he is mostly alone on it, so he can't deal with every case. Everything
would be better if there was no need to do that :-(

------
Simucal
While I sympathize with the writer of this post, I don't really see what
recourse he has? If the license allows for 120 days before they have to
release the source code, what could he possibly do?

~~~
hub_
120 days is HTC made up number. The GPL does not set such a delay. Therefor
HTC delaying the release, HTC violate the GPL license which several
components, like the kernel are licensed under.

~~~
georgemcbay
The GPL (v2) sets no specific delay but it also sets no specific deadline by
which the code must be released after a request has been made.

While the delays these companies are making are pretty lame and obviously go
against the spirit of the GPLv2, releasing code 120 days after product release
(or more importantly, from the first specific request for code from a customer
who bought the product) is not clearly in violation, from a legal standpoint.

~~~
mjg59
Are you a lawyer? Because in the past the advice I've been given is that the
absence of a deadline on a requirement does not imply the ability to impose
your own choice of deadline. 120 days is clearly far more than would be
reasonably required to provide the code.

~~~
justincormack
No but it is short enough that you wont have actually gone to court yet.

