Kindle Source Code (Links)

[EternalCyclist]

What about uploading the Kernel Sources to MobileRead's Development Hub?

We would have highlighted source code to link to in discussions and wiki.
Of course, one could also use github or similar sites.

But best would be doxygenized documentation on the web.

[knc1]

Originally Posted by EternalCyclist

What about uploading the Kernel Sources to MobileRead's Development Hub?

We would have highlighted source code to link to in discussions and wiki.
Of course, one could also use github or similar sites.

But best would be doxygenized documentation on the web.

Let us all know when you get that done.

[dos1]

Originally Posted by knc1

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

It does. Distributor of GPL application has to provide access to source code when someone who got binaries from him asks him to do so.

They don't have to upload it publicly - they can even send CD with sources to someone who asks. But of course content of that CD can be legally uploaded and redistributed after that

Has someone who owns Paperwhite asked them to provide source code?

[edit]

I can answer - yes. I did few seconds ago

I've got Kindle Paperwhite with firmware version 5.2.0 (1729740065) installed on it. It contains applications licensed on GNU General Public License, but after a month after release, I still can't find source code available anywhere on your website.

All I could find is http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...deId=200203720 page, which contains sources for older firmwares, but not for 5.2.0 used on Paperwhite.

How can I obtain source code for 5.2.0?

Kind regards,
Sebastian Krzyszkowiak

[knc1]

Originally Posted by dos1

It does. Distributor of GPL application has to provide access to source code when someone who got binaries from him asks him to do so.

My English must not have translated well.

"It does not say when" as in meaning: "With what amount of delay in time."

The GPL requires that it be provided (or rather, made available) after release of the binary to anyone who obtains the binary.

That is a definition of one sense of the word: when (after an event).
Another definition of "when" is that of a time or time period.
Nothing says: "Within 30 days of ..." or any other time.

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.

[dos1]

Originally Posted by knc1

My English must not have translated well.

"It does not say when" as in meaning: "With what amount of delay in time."

The GPL requires that it be provided (or rather, made available) after release of the binary to anyone who obtains the binary.

That is a definition of one sense of the word: when (after an event).
Another definition of "when" is that of a time or time period.
Nothing says: "Within 30 days of ..." or any other time.

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.

Actually, it has to be available in source form as soon as binary is. If they don't provide explicit way to get source, then they're asking for trouble - after asking them for source like I did, I can now say just "I've waited too long for answer". Different situation would be if they said "send your address there and we'll send you CD with sources within 2 weeks" in device manual, or even provided URL for direct download. But they didn't, so it's up to us, Paperwhite owners, to decide if they're already infringing our rights to GPL code.

Contact form said that they'll answer within 12 hours, so I gave them 12 hours

[knc1]

"Actually, it has to be available in source form as soon as binary is."

Please quote the GPL version, and section number where you are reading that.
If reading it in a Polish translation, please also supply that link.

[dos1]

Originally Posted by knc1

Please quote the GPL version, and section number where you are reading that.
If reading it in a Polish translation, please also supply that link.

Section 3.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Amazon does not do a) nor c) and it's already too late to use those two, so they can only use b). There is no such written offer now, so actually I was wrong and they are already infringing GPL license :P

[knc1]

3.B: "Accompany it with a written offer . . .
Speaks only of when you should receive the written offer.
It does not speak to when you should receive the source code.
Sorry about that.

Now your next step is to identify something they are distributing under the GPL to which you hold the copyright.
In the USA, only the copyright holder (or their appointed agent) can bring action for a license violation.

[dos1]

Originally Posted by knc1

3.B: "Accompany it with a written offer . . .
Speaks only of when you should receive the written offer.
It does not speak to when you should receive the source code.
Sorry about that.

There is no offer - so there's violation.

Now your next step is to identify something they are distributing under the GPL to which you hold the copyright.
In the USA, only the copyright holder (or their appointed agent) can bring action for a license violation.

There's code from Free Software Foundation, they will be happy to ensure that GPL is not violated in any way :P

[eureka]

Originally Posted by knc1

3.B: "Accompany it with a written offer . . .
Speaks only of when you should receive the written offer.
It does not speak to when you should receive the source code.
Sorry about that.

Now your next step is to identify something they are distributing under the GPL to which you hold the copyright.
In the USA, only the copyright holder (or their appointed agent) can bring action for a license violation.

http://www.busybox.net/license.html

License enforcement

BusyBox's copyrights are enforced by the Software Freedom Conservancy (you can contact them at gpl@busybox.net), which "accepts primary responsibility for enforcement of US copyrights on the software... and coordinates international copyright enforcement efforts for such works as necessary." If you distribute BusyBox in a way that doesn't comply with the terms of the license BusyBox is distributed under, expect to hear from these guys.

My company was distributing BusyBox binary without the source. We are contacted by users asking for the source, and we don't have it. Are we in trouble?

Not yet. But please stop doing that, and start distributing the source.

The above is what happens when people are acting in good faith. I note that the GPL imposes upon you the obligation to provide source code when you distribute. Whether you're using 3A, 3B, or 3C, they all start "Accompany it with", meaning source goes with binary at time of distribution. So if we get the binary from you and there's no mention of source code, your distribution of that binary didn't comply with the terms of the license. At that point, you're already in breach of the license terms, and it's now about fixing it. So if we have to approach you after the fact to get this information, we have the option to be really nasty about it.

[dos1]

They said that it's going to be released very soon, but they don't have exact date set. So well, it's still violation, but at least we know that they are not playing "even if you catch me, I can afford so I don't care" game and want to release it at some point "soon" :P

You are now connected to Jocel from Amazon.com.
Me:I've got Kindle Paperwhite with firmware version 5.2.0 (1729740065) installed on it. It contains applications licensed on GNU General Public License, but after a month after release, I still can't find source code available anywhere on your website.
All I could find is http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...deId=200203720 page, which contains sources for older firmwares, but not for 5.2.0 used on Paperwhite.
How can I obtain source code for 5.2.0?
Jocel:Hello, my name is Jocell. I'll be happy to assist you.
I understand that you're looking for a different source code of a Kindle Paperwhite, right. Let me check on that for you.
May I have the name on your account?
Me:Yes - Sebastian Krzyszkowiak
Jocel:Thanks.
Can you hold on a moment while I'll check this for you?
Me:Of course
Jocel:Thanks for waiting, so far we don't have updates for Kindle Paperwhite yet.
Me:Right, but I would like to get source code of software used on present version of firmware - 5.2.0
It contains software licensed on GNU GPLv2, which gives me right to get sources along with binaries
Jocel:I'm sorry but we don't have that released yet for now.
Me:When should I expect it to be available?
Jocel:Once it's released it will be in line wit the other device which can be found on our help page.
So far we don't have the date for it yet.
Me:I'm afraid that's violation of GPL license
Jocel:I'm afraid not, it will be released soon it';s just that we don't have the exact date.
Me:Technically, possibility to obtain source code has to be provided together with distribution of software in binary form (section 3 of GPLv2), not later, but thank you for information - I can wait a bit.
Jocel:Thanks, would there be anything else that I can assist you with today?
Me:I think that's all, thank you
Jocel:You're welcome and Thanks for contacting Kindle chat support, have a great one.

[knc1]

Originally Posted by knc1

In the USA, only the copyright holder (or their appointed agent) can bring action for a license violation.

What part of "or their appointed agent" would you like me to explain to you?

PS:
The subject you started this with was my comment about it does not say "when".

Now you are starting to drift onto another subject, about wither or not they are in violation of the license agreement.

[dos1]

Originally Posted by knc1

What part of "or their appointed agent" would you like me to explain to you?

PS:
The subject you started this with was my comment about it does not say "when".

Now you are starting to drift onto another subject, about wither or not they are in violation of the license agreement.

Yes, it's natural drift, as it's already settled that it *does* say when - on release. On release you should have offer available, saying how to obtain source code. As it's "written offer", it should for instance also say how long it would take to get it if it would travel through traditional mail (but right, license does not require that). When providing URL, there's of course no need for that.

Here it doesn't matter at all, as there is no such offer, so GPL is already violated.

And it's not hard to get in touch with some "appointed agent", for instance of Busybox developers (Busybox is used on Kindle), as eureka already quoted. In my opinion we should do that if they won't provide source in ~2-3 months. Now I would give them some time, that doesn't seem to be bad intentions, just some organizational thing.

[knc1]

The "it should for instance say ..." IS NOT in the legal terms of the license.
On that point, you are dreaming of what you would **LIKE** it to say.

[dos1]

Originally Posted by knc1

The "it should for instance say ..." IS NOT in the legal terms of the license.
On that point, you are dreaming of what you would **LIKE** it to say.

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?