4 ms·

> Unless sfconservancy first purchased a router, I don't believe that the GPL forces them to hand over the source code. They don't represent users, they repres

> Unless sfconservancy first purchased a router, I don't believe that the GPL forces them to hand over the source code. They don't represent users, they represent copyright holders. A copyright holder does not need to buy a violating product in order to enforce their copyright.

shakna 7y ago
Correct, but they aren't enforcing their copyright, they're claiming a breach of GPL. GPL doesn't force you to upstream your changes, and so, within the context of GPL v2, where would they be forced to hand over source code on request to sfconservancy?
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > Correct, but they aren't enforcing their copyright, they're claiming a breach of GPL. Which is the same thing. The only way to "claim breach of GPL" is to enforce copyright. These companies have no right to use the respective copyrighted software without a license, and as they are not using it under the terms of the GPL, they have no right to use it at all, which is why their use of the software is a violation of copyright. > GPL doesn't force you to upstream your changes, and so, within the context of GPL v2, where would they be forced to hand over source code on request to sfconservancy? They wouldn't be. But they are still in violation of copyright, so they better do what the copyright holder demands to rectify that situation if they don't want to be sued over that copyright violation. They are distributing software that they don't own the copyright to, and as they are violating the GPL by not providing the source or a valid offer to provide the source on request with the software, they have voided their rigfhts under the GPL as well, so they are illegaly distributing that software. The copyright owners therefore probably could get their products pulled from the shelves to stop that copyright violation. Instead of doing that, the copyright owners are offering them the option to reinstate their rights under the GPL if they provide them with a copy of the source code they would have to provide their customers under the GPL and get compliant with the terms of the GPL.

shakna 7y ago

Correct, but they aren't enforcing their copyright, they're claiming a breach of GPL. GPL doesn't force you to upstream your changes, and so, within the context of GPL v2, where would they be forced to hand over source code on request to sfconservancy?

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> Correct, but they aren't enforcing their copyright, they're claiming a breach of GPL. Which is the same thing. The only way to "claim breach of GPL" is to enforce copyright. These companies have no right to use the respective copyrighted software without a license, and as they are not using it under the terms of the GPL, they have no right to use it at all, which is why their use of the software is a violation of copyright. > GPL doesn't force you to upstream your changes, and so, within the context of GPL v2, where would they be forced to hand over source code on request to sfconservancy? They wouldn't be. But they are still in violation of copyright, so they better do what the copyright holder demands to rectify that situation if they don't want to be sued over that copyright violation. They are distributing software that they don't own the copyright to, and as they are violating the GPL by not providing the source or a valid offer to provide the source on request with the software, they have voided their rigfhts under the GPL as well, so they are illegaly distributing that software. The copyright owners therefore probably could get their products pulled from the shelves to stop that copyright violation. Instead of doing that, the copyright owners are offering them the option to reinstate their rights under the GPL if they provide them with a copy of the source code they would have to provide their customers under the GPL and get compliant with the terms of the GPL.