Kindle Source Code (Links)

[knc1]

Originally Posted by dos1

Yes, as I said. But it doesn't matter. When offer is available and you want to use it within those 3 years, they are obligated to fulfill that offer, even if you asked for that on the last day of 3 year period.

Most of the distributors nowadays are providing those "offers" as URLs with source code downloads, so this is only academic discussion without any sense in reality. Have you seen anyone providing written offer in any other way in last 5 years?

They are obligated to fulfill the offer,
but there is no time limit to **when** they fulfill the offer.

The reality is that I made a statement which you questioned.
I am only defending my own statement.

The terms of the license does not say "when" (they have to provide you with the source code <- which was the context to the post I replied to).

Attempts to divert the topic will not lessen my defense of my statement.

[dos1]

Originally Posted by knc1

They are obligated to fulfill the offer,
but there is no time limit to **when** they fulfill the offer.

The reality is that I made a statement which you questioned.
I am only defending my own statement.

The terms of the license does not say "when" (they have to provide you with the source code <- which was the context to the post I replied to).

Attempts to divert the topic will not lessen my defense of my statement.

Of course, offer says how long it will take to proceed it. But no, read again your first post about that - you implied that if they don't provide sources in 3 years, they don't have to do that anymore. That's not the case.

If offer says "go to this URL to download", then if URL doesn't work within those 3 years it's a violation.
If offer says "send us your address and you'll get source code on CD within 2 weeks", then if it won't arrive within 2 weeks it's a violation.
If offer says "send us your address and you'll get source", then if you won't get it in some reasonable time, it's a violation.

What does "reasonable time" in that last case mean - court will decide.

If there's no offer and no sources attached at all - it's an automatic violation :P

[knc1]

Originally Posted by dos1

What does "reasonable time" in that last case mean - court will decide.

Correct, **a court** not the terms of the license.

And the context of the quote was:

Originally Posted by twobob

Okay. err... isn't it a legal requirement they release this? So why isn't it?
Thoughts on that? Likely timeline?

Originally Posted by knc1

Yes.
No, the GPL does not say: "When".

The GPL says when the offer must be made.
It does not say when the release must be delivered.

[dos1]

Correct, **a court** not the terms of the license.

Of course, no one sane expects generic license to cover all possible durations of every possible way of delivery.

Originally Posted by knc1

The GPL says when the offer must be made.
It does not say when the release must be delivered.

Well, your first answer was a bit misleading. As in this case (as you want to stick with context) there was no offer at all, there's no point in discussing releasing without introducing proper distinction between those two.

I.E: Amazon may delay providing you with the sources you requested until 3 years after they where last used in a distributed binary.
Afterwards (greater than 3 years) they are under no obligation of the license

And this is false. They can only delay fulfilling offer, but then the same legal rules as to every, not only software related, offer apply. If they delay too much, then it's just failure in fulfilling an offer - so it's a violation. If you asked for sources in those 3 years, they still have to give them to you even after 10 years of delaying.

I think it's time to end this discussion - it seems to be centered around problems in communication instead of real content :P

[eureka]

5.2.0: http://kindle.s3.amazonaws.com/Kindl...9740065.tar.gz
5.3.0: http://kindle.s3.amazonaws.com/Kindl...4700020.tar.gz

[geekmaster]

Are there any units in the wild reported to have 5.3.0 firmware?

[dos1]

Originally Posted by geekmaster

Are there any units in the wild reported to have 5.3.0 firmware?

There is update available for Papewhite. My device already has it.

Beware, it's a full reflash and not incremental update.

And as you can guess, I haven't done backups

[NiLuJe]

I'm guessing the JP devices will ship with 5.3.0...

[geekmaster]

Originally Posted by NiLuJe

I'm guessing the JP devices will ship with 5.3.0...

What is a "JP device"?

[NiLuJe]

I meant the devices that'll be released in Japan .

[dos1]

knc1 found out that 5.2.0 and 5.3.0 firmwares contain GNU TLS licensed on GNU GPLv3.

This means that they have to provide all needed information about installing our own version of gnutls on the device. Effectively it means that they have to tell us, how to jailbreak Kindle Paperwhite - not doing that is a license infringement.

More info and original post:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...6&postcount=59

[knc1]

Originally Posted by dos1

knc1 found out that 5.2.0 and 5.3.0 firmwares contain GNU TLS licensed on GNU GPLv3.

This means that they have to provide all needed information about installing our own version of gnutls on the device. Effectively it means that they have to tell us, how to jailbreak Kindle Paperwhite - not doing that is a license infringement.

More info and original post:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...6&postcount=59

Additional information in the license text itself.
Including the clarifications of "when" that GPLv2 did not have.
The GPLv3 is much better written than GPLv2.

And unlike the manufacturer's of zillions of Chinese "Digital Media Players", Amazon is a USA corporation with deep enough pockets to be worth making an example of.
So perhaps enforcement action will be taken.

Until then, owners should do their part, make the requests.

[dos1]

Originally Posted by knc1

Additional information in the license text itself.
Including the clarifications of "when" that GPLv2 did not have.
The GPLv3 is much better written than GPLv2.

And unlike the manufacturer's of zillions of Chinese "Digital Media Players", Amazon is a USA corporation with deep enough pockets to be worth making an example of.
So perhaps enforcement action will be taken.

Until then, owners should do their part, make the requests.

Unfortunately, it looks like false alarm. libgnutls is distributed under LGPL 2.1. Binaries and extras are under GPL 3, but those are not included in firmware (at least not in 5.3.0).

Sucks.

[twobob]

Weak. Shame.

[qlob]

It was a good try... Maybe we can find a program with a similar license?