Quote:
Originally Posted by slate
Either way it was poorly handled...
The email I received indicated that the development team was consulted and said that no GPL code was being used. This is a lie.
There is also no reference on how to obtain the source code via their website. So anyone who doesn't know about mobileread would not know about their github account.
Source code seems to only be released when someone makes a stink about it. This is does not bode well in the spirit of open source software.
|
While I would agree it was poorly handled and the development team's response was misleading and confusing, I don't know if I'd say they said they no GPL code was used. The response to me seems to suggest what they're saying is whatever they added isn't covered by the GPL but the original Android may be (but you need to work out from Android how to deal with that). This is misleading since their customisations to the Android and Linux source code and anything else covered by GPL are covered and they do need to make them available, but I presume they do have some work which is entirely their own and separate from the GPL covered code and therefore not covered by the GPL. I'm guessing that one of the big issues is the poor understanding by the person replying of how everything here works. It sounds to me like the person thinks of Android as a separate entity which they are using in the Kobo Arc, but not responsible for which of course isn't true. I suspect this is why BWinmill suggested you make it clear to them that they are responsible to make available their specific Android source code. Again, I'm not saying their response was good, simply that I don't think they were so much lying about what they use; but rather whoever the low level tech support person replying was, simply didn't under much at all about how it all works (and most likely whichever low level person in the development team they contacted, didn't either).
BTW, as I understand the GPL, technically there's nothing wrong with them only making the code available when someone asks provided when releasing the binaries they include the licence and a written offer to distribute the source code to you. You can argue it's not in the spirit of the GPL and I would agree it's not ideal, but probably not a violation depending on how the term 'written offer' is interpreted and whether they can be argued to have made one and comply with it. The problem here of course is that because of support confusion they aren't making it available on request despite the written offer which means they are in violation. Considering the difficult of them educating their staff about the GPL, it would probably be best if they did just provide a link on their website and proactively release their GPL source code, although the way they're handling it now is unfortunately not uncommon.