Are they obligued to give me the source code?

Yes they are required to. All of the embedded Linux vendors I've ever seen do so. Have they told you they won't? If so, who are they?

Thanks, Grant. A commercial guy from the distributor told me so, but he was going to check it with the distro makers. I'll give them a chance before publishing their name.

They have to give you the source code if you ask for it, but they are allowed to charge a small handling fee - they are not obliged to make the source code a free-for-all download link. But they *are* obliged to tell you of your rights under the GPL.

Ignacio G.T. ha scritto:

Read here

In Germany a judge just ruled that they need to provide the source code on a hardware medium (such as CD) and need to provide a written copy of the GPL together with the hardware device.

-Michael

I'm not surprised. That's certainly what the text of the GPL says.

There is a distinction here (in the GPL - I don't know about the case ruling). I don't believe you have to provide a full copy of the GPL in physical form (that would not apply to downloaded code, for example), but they have to either provide the source code from the same source as the binary (e.g., a CD accompanying the hardware), or a written offer, valid for 3 years, to provide the source code on request. I believe that they must provide information to this effect along with the binary (or the hardware, in this case). There is no obligation to provide you with a CD containing the source code - it is enough that they will give you such a CD (possibly charging an administration fee) on request.

AFAI understood:

According to this decision the source code must come with the compiled code. Thus if the compiled code can be downloaded the source code needs to be downloadable from the same site. If the compiled code comes with some kind of a hardware, the source code should come with a related roll-out.

-Michael

Michael Schnell a écrit :

This would apply to all firmware downloads containing GPL stuff. That's interesting as I know at least one company that does not do that: you have to pay $20 to get a CD with the (incomplete) code.

Did you get that from the German ruling?

Laurent

(Please quote properly when replying in a Usenet group - it makes it much easier to follow the thread, and is particularly relevant if anyone looks up these posts in the archives.)

I'm not sure that such a ruling would have any effect - I don't believe it is possible for a court to impose additional restrictions or requirements beyond those in the license in question. It's possible that they can do this for a particular company and a particular case, as a punishment for not following the license in the first place, but there is no way a court can add requirements to a license in general.

mvh.,

David

If course they were hearing a dedicate case. But as it supposedly is the first ruling in such a case, other judges will follow that argument.

-Michael