GPL violation?

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by dottedmag

Bookeen DISTRIBUTES it, not USES.

Understood. However, please quote to me, from the GPL v2 where it says if you distribute an unmodifed GPL program that you must also provide links to it and the source? Maybe you do, but I can't find that. I only see that you have to do this if you distribute a MODIFIED version of it.

BOb

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by dottedmag

We have the facts: reverse-engineering gives traces of GPLed software. NOTHING ELSE MATTER: any NDAs, SDKs or any other crap. IT IS IRRELEVANT DID THEY SIGN ANYTHING. Bookeen distributes GPL-ed software without giving full instructions of how to build it.

Where in the GPL are you required to give "FULL INSTRUCTIONS OF HOW TO BUILD IT?"

BOb

[dottedmag]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Understood. However, please quote to me, from the GPL v2 where it says if you distribute an unmodifed GPL program that you must also provide links to it and the source? Maybe you do, but I can't find that. I only see that you have to do this if you distribute a MODIFIED version of it.

"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form..."

So here is no distinction between original and modified program.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by dottedmag

"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form..."

So here is no distinction between original and modified program.

I don't see anything there about providing links to it? Just that it gives you permission to distribute it.

BOb

[dottedmag]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Where in the GPL are you required to give "FULL INSTRUCTIONS OF HOW TO BUILD IT?"

BOb

"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."

Under "full instructions" I meant all the information needed to obtain source code, if not provided by the vendor directly, and all the scripts needed to build it. I think it is reasonable definition of "full instructions": how to obtain and how to build.

[dottedmag]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I don't see anything there about providing links to it? Just that it gives you permission to distribute it.

Read the GPL on - whole '3' section is about it. I just quoted the part needed to answer your question about original and modified software.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by dottedmag

"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."

Under "full instructions" I meant all the information needed to obtain source code, if not provided by the vendor directly, and all the scripts needed to build it. I think it is reasonable definition of "full instructions": how to obtain and how to build.

Ok, maybe how to obtain it. But, not how to build it. I don't think there is a requierment to tell you want make files to run, etc.

[dottedmag]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Ok, maybe how to obtain it. But, not how to build it. I don't think there is a requierment to tell you want make files to run, etc.

Oh, instructions may be executable (and that's the best form of them

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by dottedmag

We have the facts: reverse-engineering gives traces of GPLed software. NOTHING ELSE MATTER: any NDAs, SDKs or any other crap. IT IS IRRELEVANT DID THEY SIGN ANYTHING. Bookeen distributes GPL-ed software without giving full instructions of how to build it.

Then why aren't you first going after Netronix? They *sell* the base unit that Bookeen uses to run the Boo Reader. And it's not as if Netronix is hard to find; they have a solid web presence and they list their headquarters addresses. And they are the ones who don't just post a link to the source code they use.

Why is it that you are so pissed at Bookeen?

Derek

[dottedmag]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

Then why aren't you first going after Netronix? They *sell* the base unit that Bookeen uses to run the Boo Reader. And it's not as if Netronix is hard to find; they have a solid web presence and they list their headquarters addresses. And they are the ones who don't just post a link to the source code they use.

Because Netronix did not sell device to me, so I can't do anything. Well, I *can* buy their e-book and then ask for the source code, but this will be worthless - Taiwan and China have quite radical different laws, so it is very improbable to enforce GPL there.

Anyway, Bookeen still violates copyright, so if Bookeen will be sued, it will be *their* problem to negotiate with Netronix.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by dottedmag

Because Netronix did not sell device to me, so I can't do anything. Well, I *can* buy their e-book and then ask for the source code, but this will be worthless - Taiwan and China have quite radical different laws, so it is very improbable to enforce GPL there.

Anyway, Bookeen still violates copyright, so if Bookeen will be sued, it will be *their* problem to negotiate with Netronix.

And if you buy their EB-100, they'll tell you the same thing they told me. Buy the Developer's package and you get the source code.

Derek

[Nate the great]

I think this GPL problem is why Astak went with WinCE instead of Linux.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I think this GPL problem is why Astak went with WinCE instead of Linux.

I tend to agree. However, the issue then becomes, is there an already-made solution for the Astak or Netronix WinCE OS of Mobipocket?

Derek

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

I tend to agree. However, the issue then becomes, is there an already-made solution for the Astak or Netronix WinCE OS of Mobipocket?

Derek

I don't know for sure, but I have been told that the WinCE version of Mobipocket should work on 5.0, even though it is only supposed to go up to 4.x.

[wallcraft]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I think this GPL problem is why Astak went with WinCE instead of Linux.

It is very easy to get in compliance with the GPL - iRex and Amazon and Sony have all done so. It does not matter where Netronix is located, any major purchaser can get its OEM to release source code if they take the trouble to do so. The only argument in Bookeen's favor at present is that perhaps they are not a major Netronix customer. Astak definitely is a major customer (or partner), and they would have had no trouble getting the required source code released if (a) the device was running Linux and (b) they knew enough to ask for it. Since it is running WinCE, it is up to MicroSoft to confirm that the devices have a valid license. After all, if Netronix will bootleg Open Source code they will presumably do the same for WinCE if they can get away with it.