Advice for initial contact

[Julius Schwartzenberg]

Hi,

I came across a GPL violation and I'd like to ask for some advice on the
initial contact with the company.

I previously mailed with Armijn about this and he would discuss the
situation with Harald's lawyers, but it appears they are busy.

The violation is quite old, the used software includes Linux 2.4.10,
Apache 1.3, BIND 8 and a few more things (Armijn's BAT scan of a
firmware update).
I haven't been able to obtain a shell on the device, but through the web
interface, I managed to read out multiple files under /proc which
resemble the output from Linux. The filesystem otherwise appears to be
very different from a regular layout.

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.
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.

None of the provided documentation with the device mentions the GPL or
that the source code is available.

So far I have not had any contact with the company yet.

What would be the recommended way to address this situation?

Thanks a lot in advance,
Julius

[Ian Stirling]

Post by Julius Schwartzenberg
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.

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Sun, 11 May 2014 20:01:55 +0100, Ian wrote in message

Post by Ian Stirling

Post by Julius Schwartzenberg
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)

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

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

[Julius Schwartzenberg]

Post by Ian Stirling

Post by Julius Schwartzenberg
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

[Chris DiBona]

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 <

Post by Julius Schwartzenberg

Post by Ian Stirling

Post by Julius Schwartzenberg
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

[Ian Stirling]

Post by Julius Schwartzenberg
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)

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

Post by Julius Schwartzenberg
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.

Post by Julius Schwartzenberg
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
<***@sfconservancy.org> 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.

Post by Julius Schwartzenberg
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

[Julius Schwartzenberg]

Post by Bradley M. Kuhn
I suggest anyway you mail your evidence over to me at
better not to accuse a company publicly without at least investigating
the facts in detail first and trying to talk to them privately first.

Post by Julius Schwartzenberg
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!