

Ask HN: targeting stores that sell GPL-violating devices? - duncan_bayne

I&#x27;m becoming frustrated by the number of Android devices being sold in Australia without source being released as per the GPL.<p>It occurred to me that instead of dealing with each individual manufacturer, it may be more effective to seek an injunction against stores selling the services - essentially naming a list of violating devices and asking that the court prohibit them from selling them.<p>By making it the stores problem, that ought to create far more pressure on manufacturers than direct complaints.<p>I have several questions I hoped the HN folks might be able to shed some light on:<p>* Does the seller of a device have obligations under the GPL, if that device is manufactured by a third party?  I think so, and in the past sellers (e.g. Telstra) have stepped up to pressure manufacturers into compliance.<p>* Has this approach been tried before, and with what results?<p>* Is there someone in Australia with a history of GPL litigation who might be able to provide some extra info?<p>I imagine that the main problem would be paying for the lawyer(s).  Crowdsourcing could help here, I imagine.
======
Yaa101
Yes, anybody who distributes has the obligation to give the receiver of GPL'd
code exactly the same rights as the maker and/or distributer.

You need aliances to make bigger parties comply, the bigger the fish the
bigger your aliances need to be, I do not know Australian law specific but
there is a german guy that has had some victories over this.

Try to contact the EFF or similar foundation in your country.

Good luck, oh yes, I am a programmer that made some GPL'd work, mostly for
private clients, but this is a public distribution:
[http://sitebar.org/](http://sitebar.org/) I mean the client, the server is
programmed by Ondrej Brablc.

------
wmf
IMO creating collateral damage just pisses people off so that they'll never
listen to you in the future. What about getting the devices seized by customs?

~~~
duncan_bayne
The point isn't collateral damage, though. The point is to make violating
devices unprofitable to buy and sell.

Re. customs, that's an interesting angle. I'm sure there are 'Intellectual
Property' protection laws that could be invoked to, say, seize pirated shirts
or CDs at the border. Perhaps those laws could be invoked against violating
devices?

