

Google's disappearing Android GPL compliance opportunity - corbet
http://lwn.net/SubscriberLink/474198/da9167a4023a2812/

======
cube13
Who is the distributor? Is it Google? Is it HTC/Samsung/Motorola? The FSF has
had issues with defining this before, like with the iOS VLC application, where
some of the developers felt that having a link to the source in the app as
well as on the website was enough, but other devs and the FSF initially felt
that the Apple app store _had_ to distribute the source, since they were the
"distributor". They dropped this later on and went after Apple's terms.

So absent a clear definition, why is this Google's fault more than the
manufacturers? More importantly, why isn't the FSF or GNU going after all the
manufacturers for GPL violations? These are pretty cut and dry license
violations, so why isn't anyone actually doing anything about it?

~~~
tzs
I don't think anyone dropped the claim that Apple was a distributor. I don't
see any way to make any kind of rational argument under US copyright law that
they are not a distributor.

The question was whether or not they needed permission of the copyright holder
of the GPL code in order to distribute. Contrary to widespread believe,
distribution does not always require permission.

For instance, if you buy from Best Buy or Amazon a router that contains Linux
firmware, then Best Buy or Amazon has in fact distributed Linux to you. Yet
they have no obligation whatsoever to provide you with source code, or point
you to where you can get it.

That's because the copies they are distributing are copies they got from the
router manufacturer. Amazon and Best Buy are not making copies of their own
for distribution, or modifying the copies they receive form the router maker
before selling the router. They are just passing the copies through.

That puts them squarely under a section of copyright law called the "First
Sale Doctrine" which basically says that the copyright owner's right to
control distribution does not extend to individual copies that were
legitimately distributed with permission of the copyright owner.

So, if Amazon or Best Buy wanted to make you agree to GPL incompatible terms
for items you bought from them, there would be no problem. They could continue
to sell Linux routers.

Compare to the App Store. Apple receives one copy from the developer. When a
sale is made, Apple makes a new copy from that and distributes that new copy.
That's the first distribution of that particular copy, and so does not benefit
from the First Sale Doctrine.

~~~
derobert
Well, or possibly not if the routers were made outside the US, then first sale
may not apply at all (e.g., the 9th Circuit in Costco Wholesale Corporation v.
Omega, S.A.).

See also the EFF's blog at [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/eff-asks-
supreme-court...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/eff-asks-supreme-
court-tackle-important-first-sale-questions)

------
dlb_
The author refers to a recent discussion about the GPL termination clauses.
Does anyone have a link to that?

I'm curious what would happen if a Linux copyright holder (e.g. any
contributor?) would actually terminate a manufacturer's license and file an
injunction.

~~~
corbet
See <http://lwn.net/Articles/455013/>, for example.

------
shareme
Unfortunately, the author of said article fails to understand the differences
pertaining to FOSS licensing when we consider and compare items in the user
space and the kenel space. And that gets more complicated when you add the
RTOS dependency and its modules to the mix.

Its a shame, the author could have chosen to educate rather than hyperbole
which would have made afar greater impression on those groups the author wants
to change the minds of..

~~~
hugoroy
Do you understand you're totally off-topic? Distributors of Android also
distribute the Linux Kernel, which is GPL. So they must comply with the GPL
parts. That's it.

