Re: SFLC's GPL court enforcement -- track record

[Tim Smith]

In article <488A0C76.B47FECB7@web.de>,
 Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> > Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
> > 
> > <http://opensource.actiontec.com/>
> 
> Actiontec wasn't a defendant. Verizon was a defendant.
> 
> After the case ends: Defendant is still in violation of the GPL.
> 
> After the case ends: Defendant still doesn't make GPL'd sources
> available.

The GPL requirement is:

   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,

[Third option deleted as it is only relevant to noncommercial 
distribution]

I don't see how you can tell if they are satisfying 3(b) or not without 
actually obtaining one of the routers from Verizon and seeing if it is 
accompanied with a written offer to provide the source.  If it is, there 
is nothing that says that if they choose to distribute by the web, it 
has to be from a verizon.com web site.

-- 
--Tim Smith