8 ms·

> I then decided to contact Insulet to get the kernel source code for it, being GPLv2 licensed, they're obligated to provide it. This is technically not true.

by teddyh 10mo ago

> I then decided to contact Insulet to get the kernel source code for it, being GPLv2 licensed, they're obligated to provide it. This is technically not true. It is an oversimplification of the common case, but what actually normally should happen is that: 1. The GPL requires the company to send the user a written offer of source code. 2. The user uses this offer to request the source code from the company. 3. If the user does not receive the source code, the user can sue the company for not honoring its promises, i.e. the offer of source code. This is not a GPL violation; it is a straight contract violation; the contract in this case being the explicit offer of source code, and not the GPL. Note that all this is completely off the rails if the user does not receive a written offer of source code in the first place. In this case, the user has no right to source code, since the user did not receive an offer for source code. However, the copyright holders can immediately sue the company for violating the GPL, since the company did not send a written offer of source code to the user. It does not matter if the company does or does not send the source code to the user; the fact that the company did not send a written offer to the user in the first place is by itself a GPL violation. (IANAL)

jstanley 10mo ago
Are you saying that in the general case if you send someone a written offer for something and then don't honour it, you are in breach of contract? That doesn't sound right to me. A written offer is not the same thing as a contract.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- dspillett 10mo ago
  The written offer is part of the licence, as is the need to respond to that offer with the source code offered. It is all part of the same agreement. A written offer on its own would not normally be directly enforceable in many (most?) jurisdictions, for the same sort of reason that retailers can't be held to incorrectly published prices (in the UK at least, a displayed price is an “invitation to tender”, not a contract or other promise) except where other laws/regulations (anti bait&switch rules for instance), or the desire to avoid fighting in the court of public opinion, come into effect. But in this instance, the written offer and the response to that offer are part of the wider licence that has been agreed to.
  - teddyh 10mo ago
    I don’t think so; I can’t recall any support for such a connection between the written offer and the GPL itself written into the GPL license text.
    - abdullahkhalids 10mo ago
      From section 4 [1] > If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. Similar clauses in Sec 6. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html
      - teddyh 10mo ago
        That section (and similar in section 6d) is not about the written offer of source code. The written offer of source code is instead covered in section 6c.
        abdullahkhalids 10mo ago
        Ah.. Thanks > c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution.
        immibis 10mo ago
        So according to the legal theory expressed in this thread so far, nobody can sue anybody and there's no obligation to provide source code. The copyright holder couldn't sue because the license was followed (an offer was provided) and the end user couldn't sue because the offer doesn't have to be followed up on. Or, instead of theorycrafting reasons why it shouldn't work, you could "just" sue them and see if the judge agrees.
- teddyh 10mo ago
  Maybe it’s not technically “breach of contract”, and an offer might or might not be a contract. But if you don’t honor an offer you made, you must surely be guilty of something. Otherwise, all offers would be meaningless and worth nothing.
  - jstanley 10mo ago
    I don't think you're guilty of anything for failing to honour an offer in most cases.
    - kkjjjjw 10mo ago
      Such offer is as legally binding as any tender. Of course a contract dispute could go either way.
    - Retric 10mo ago
      An offer is legally binding in that when someone acts based on that offer you can be liable for damages. This does not force you to honor the original offer though.
  - phlummox 10mo ago
    > you must surely be guilty of something. Otherwise, all offers would be meaningless and worth nothing. You don't have to be "guilty" of anything to be liable in civil law (which contract law is a part of). "Guilt" is a concept from criminal law. It isn't required for contracts to be enforceable. In general (there are exceptions) offers alone aren't enforceable and don't result in a contract. You need other elements (agreement by the parties, plus something done in return for what's offered) for a contract to be formed - and then it's enforceable.
- kgwxd 10mo ago
  I think they're just saying the GPL doesn't really cover consumer/distributor (dis)agreements, it only covers copyright. While the spirit of the GPL is user-first, it still has to be realized within the confines of copyright law. Even though many people might conflate the spiritual goal and the legal agreement, it doesn't grant "users" any extraordinary legal powers. It's not illegal to not honor written offers, it's illegal to distribute copyrighted material in violation of it's license.
  - cxr 10mo ago
    That's not what they're saying. On the shelves are three insulin pumps: one with a 5-year warranty, one at a bargain barrel price that comes with no warranty, and one accompanied by a written offer allowing you to obtain the source code (and, subject to the terms of the GPL, prepare your own derivative works) at no additional charge any time within the next three years. Weighing your options, you go with pump #3. You write to the company asking for the GPL source. They say "nix". They're in breach.
    - schmuckonwheels 10mo ago
      The GPLv2 under which Linux is licensed does not prohibit that insulin pump from bricking itself if you tried to install "your own derivative work" that wasn't signed by the manufacturer. This is not only possible but also prudent for a device which can also kill you.
      - fn-mote 10mo ago
        Possibly true, but irrelevant to the post to which you are replying. The argument is over providing you the source code.
  - TZubiri 10mo ago
    So gpl is a licensor-licensee contract, if code and license is not shared to the user, then there is no contract to which the user is a party, rather the user is a beneficiary. The offer of source code seems to be a way to facilitate the conveyance of source code through opt-in means separately from the object code rather than some legal trickery to create a user-licensee contract. While the offer may indeed convey a licensee-user obligation, a compliant distribution would attach a license anyway, converting the user into a licensee and licensor to licensee in a recursive fashion I wonder if lawyers specialize in this, it sounds very cool and not at all standard law, but somehow compatible with contract law IANAL
- ww520 10mo ago
  The customer spends money to buy the product along with the source code offered. It's part of the transaction. Not honoring part of the transaction is a breach of contract.
- woah 10mo ago
  And what are the damages?
- abigail95 10mo ago
  Offer and acceptance are part of how contracts are formed. There is no contract without there first being an offer. If you accept someones offer, provided it meets the rest of the criteria for a valid contract - congratulations you now have a contract. If the any party violates it, yes this is a breach of contract. > A written offer is not the same thing as a contract. An offer is a precondition and component of a contract
TZubiri 10mo ago
> This is not a GPL violation; it is a straight contract violation But GPL is a contract I think the distinction you are pointing would be between a gpl licensor-licensee contract, rather than a licensee-user contract. (IANAL)
- teddyh 10mo ago
  > But GPL is a contract Not according to the original reasoning by its creators, but opinions differ wildly. However, this is irrelevant to the point; the written offer, which is separate from the GPL, is what is failing to be honored, not the GPL. If you did not receive such a written offer, the GPL, in itself, makes no guarantee that you have the right to the source code.
  - indymike 10mo ago
    > If you did not receive such a written offer, the GPL, in itself, makes no guarantee that you have the right to the source code Wrong. The requirement to provide source code under the GPL is primarily governed by Section 3 of the GNU General Public License v2 and Section 1 of the GNU General Public License v3. The whole point of the the GPL is to make it so users of software could get source code to the software.
    - teddyh 10mo ago
      Section 3 of GPL 2 states that the company must either give the source to the user alongside the product (in which case the user has the source already), or the company must give to the user a written offer of source code. Note that if the second option is taken, the company is not obligated by the GPL itself to give the source code to the user. It is then only the written offer which obligates the company to give the source code to the user; only the written offer gives the user the right to the source code. Not the GPL itself.
      - indymike 10mo ago
        The GPL forces the offer and provides the remedy if you don't provide source, so I'm not sure why this is so important to you?
JoshTriplett 10mo ago
This is an open legal question, which the Conservancy v Vizio case will hopefully change; in that case, Conservancy is arguing that consumers have the right to enforce the GPL in order to receive source code.
- singpolyma3 10mo ago
  The argument here is that, if there is an offer, they already do under standard contract law.
- schmuckonwheels 10mo ago
  This got buried on HN a few days ago which is a shame: https://social.kernel.org/notice/B1aR6QFuzksLVSyBZQ https://social.kernel.org/notice/B1aR6QFuzksLVSyBZQ Linus rants that the SFC is wrong and argues that the GPLv2 which the kernel is licensed under does NOT force you to open your hardware. The spirit of the GPLv2 was about contributing software improvements back to the community. Which brings us to the question: what is this guy going to do with (presumably) the kernel source? Force the Chinese to contribute back their improvements to the kernel? Of which there are likely none. Try and run custom software on his medical device which can likely kill him? More than likely. The judge's comments on the Vizio case are such that should this guy get his hands on the code, he has no right to modify/reinstall it AND expect it will continue to operate as an insulin pump. This is about as ridiculous as buying a ticket on an airplane and thinking you are entitled to the source code of the Linux in-seat entertainment system.
  - ryandrake 10mo ago
    Why is it ridiculous? If the license says you have the right to obtain the source code to software that was distributed to you, then you have the right to obtain the source code. It doesn't matter what your intended use of it is.
    - schmuckonwheels 10mo ago
      It's a medical device that requires a prescription. You can't buy it off the shelf. They're not distributing software to you either. You must go through a medical equipment supplier who transfers the device to you after insurance has paid for some or all of it. For the same reason you can't find an airplane entertainment system in the trash and call up the company and demand source code.
immibis 10mo ago
In America, maybe this is the case. In Germany, it seems an end user can sue them directly for source code.
- teddyh 10mo ago
  Maybe. Who can and cannot sue is irrelevant to my point. But I seriously doubt that anyone can sue for source code. Someone might sue for damages, and the company might offer to settle by offering source code. But IIUC, no company can be sued and forced to give up any source code, unless the company itself chooses to do this instead of paying damages.
  - immibis 10mo ago
    To repeat: Maybe that's how it works in America. In Germany, it seems you can sue for anything you're entitled to, not just money.
  - AdelaideSimone 10mo ago
    I don't know how easy it is in Germany compared to the U S., but this is false. In the U.S., you absolute can sue (and it is extremely common) to force certain actions. See: constructive trust, mandatory injunction, prohibitive injunction, specific performance, recission, writ. In all likelihood, you would not receive the source code in the U.S., though. If deadset against release, the outcome would likely be that the offender would be fined and injoined from any further distribution.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
kevin_thibedeau 10mo ago
The written offer with a limited term of three years is just one permitted method of distribution. If an offer was never made then they're not covered by that clause and are bound to comply by other means without the protection of the three year window.
- teddyh 10mo ago
  Yes. I did not cover these cases because approximately nobody does that. I mean, the absolutely simplest, and cheapest, way for companies to comply with the GPL is to ship the source code together with the software. Stick it in a zip file in a directory somewhere. The company can then forget the whole thing and not worry about anyone contacting them and ranting about source code and the GPL. But no company does that. The other simple way for companies to comply with the GPL is for companies to provide a link to download the source code at the same place that users download the program itself. If the user did not download the source code when they had the chance, that’s the user’s problem. This will also let the company ignore any GPL worries. No company does this, either. (The GPL provides a third way for individuals and non-profits, which is not relevant here.)
mkehrt 10mo ago
IANAL, but this is my understanding. What's the consideration in the written offer? Promises aren't enforceable in court. For a contract to be enforceable, it has to be an exchange of something, not a one sided offer. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration
- tzs 10mo ago
  There are substitutes for consideration. Search for "detrimental reliance" and "promissory estoppel" if you want to go down that rabbit hole.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
faidit 10mo ago
Doesn't seem incorrect if, extra steps aside, the company is ultimately obligated to provide the source code by the terms of the GPL.
tzs 10mo ago
> The GPL requires the company to send the user a written offer of source code It should be noted that this is just one of three options that someone who wants to distribute binaries of GPL code can choose from. It's the most commonly chosen one, and one is only available for noncommercial distribution, so the odds are good that this is the option they are using. The other available option is to accompany the binary with the source code. That one leads to an interesting possibility where someone could end up with a binary and there is no one obligated to provide source to them. As far as I know this has not actually arisen, but it seems like something that is bound to happen sometime. Suppose company X decides to make a generic hardware platform that other companies can buy to build their products on. X's platform is basically a small single board computer with WiFi, Bluetooth, dual, USB ports, a couple Ethernet ports, and some GPIO ports. X ports Linux to their hardware. When X ships a system it comes with an SD card with a Linux distribution installed including their custom kernel. It is configured to boot from the first SD card slot, and then to run a custom login system that looks at the second SD card slot and if there is a card in there it mounts it, looks for an executable on its root name application.exe, and runs that as root. X includes in the box a small thumb drive with a copy of the source code for everything on the SD card. The idea is that a company Y that wants to make something like a WiFi access point or an air quality monitor can buy these boards from X, put them in a case with whatever peripherals or sensors they need like air quality sensors, write the software for the application, put it on an SD card, and put that in the second SD card slot. So lets say Y buys 1000 of these systems from X, builds 1000 of their access points or whatever from them, and sells them. One of their customers asks Y for the source code of the GPL parts. Does Y have to provide it? I'd say they do not. They are not making copies or derivative works. They are just receiving physical copies from X and passing those on unmodified to their customers. This should fall squarely under the First Sale Doctrine in US copyright law, and similar rules in other jurisdictions. How about if they ask X for a copy? X has made copies and derivative works and distributed them. But X satisfied their GPL requirements by including a thumb drive with the source with each board they shipped to Y.

by teddyh 10mo ago

jstanley 10mo ago

Are you saying that in the general case if you send someone a written offer for something and then don't honour it, you are in breach of contract? That doesn't sound right to me. A written offer is not the same thing as a contract.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
dspillett 10mo ago
The written offer is part of the licence, as is the need to respond to that offer with the source code offered. It is all part of the same agreement. A written offer on its own would not normally be directly enforceable in many (most?) jurisdictions, for the same sort of reason that retailers can't be held to incorrectly published prices (in the UK at least, a displayed price is an “invitation to tender”, not a contract or other promise) except where other laws/regulations (anti bait&switch rules for instance), or the desire to avoid fighting in the court of public opinion, come into effect. But in this instance, the written offer and the response to that offer are part of the wider licence that has been agreed to.
- teddyh 10mo ago
  I don’t think so; I can’t recall any support for such a connection between the written offer and the GPL itself written into the GPL license text.
  - abdullahkhalids 10mo ago
    From section 4 [1] > If distribution of object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place satisfies the requirement to distribute the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code. Similar clauses in Sec 6. [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.1.html
    - teddyh 10mo ago
      That section (and similar in section 6d) is not about the written offer of source code. The written offer of source code is instead covered in section 6c.
      - abdullahkhalids 10mo ago
        Ah.. Thanks > c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution.
        immibis 10mo ago
        So according to the legal theory expressed in this thread so far, nobody can sue anybody and there's no obligation to provide source code. The copyright holder couldn't sue because the license was followed (an offer was provided) and the end user couldn't sue because the offer doesn't have to be followed up on. Or, instead of theorycrafting reasons why it shouldn't work, you could "just" sue them and see if the judge agrees.
teddyh 10mo ago
Maybe it’s not technically “breach of contract”, and an offer might or might not be a contract. But if you don’t honor an offer you made, you must surely be guilty of something. Otherwise, all offers would be meaningless and worth nothing.
- jstanley 10mo ago
  I don't think you're guilty of anything for failing to honour an offer in most cases.
  - kkjjjjw 10mo ago
    Such offer is as legally binding as any tender. Of course a contract dispute could go either way.
  - Retric 10mo ago
    An offer is legally binding in that when someone acts based on that offer you can be liable for damages. This does not force you to honor the original offer though.
- phlummox 10mo ago
  > you must surely be guilty of something. Otherwise, all offers would be meaningless and worth nothing. You don't have to be "guilty" of anything to be liable in civil law (which contract law is a part of). "Guilt" is a concept from criminal law. It isn't required for contracts to be enforceable. In general (there are exceptions) offers alone aren't enforceable and don't result in a contract. You need other elements (agreement by the parties, plus something done in return for what's offered) for a contract to be formed - and then it's enforceable.
kgwxd 10mo ago
I think they're just saying the GPL doesn't really cover consumer/distributor (dis)agreements, it only covers copyright. While the spirit of the GPL is user-first, it still has to be realized within the confines of copyright law. Even though many people might conflate the spiritual goal and the legal agreement, it doesn't grant "users" any extraordinary legal powers. It's not illegal to not honor written offers, it's illegal to distribute copyrighted material in violation of it's license.
- cxr 10mo ago
  That's not what they're saying. On the shelves are three insulin pumps: one with a 5-year warranty, one at a bargain barrel price that comes with no warranty, and one accompanied by a written offer allowing you to obtain the source code (and, subject to the terms of the GPL, prepare your own derivative works) at no additional charge any time within the next three years. Weighing your options, you go with pump #3. You write to the company asking for the GPL source. They say "nix". They're in breach.
  - schmuckonwheels 10mo ago
    The GPLv2 under which Linux is licensed does not prohibit that insulin pump from bricking itself if you tried to install "your own derivative work" that wasn't signed by the manufacturer. This is not only possible but also prudent for a device which can also kill you.
    - fn-mote 10mo ago
      Possibly true, but irrelevant to the post to which you are replying. The argument is over providing you the source code.
- TZubiri 10mo ago
  So gpl is a licensor-licensee contract, if code and license is not shared to the user, then there is no contract to which the user is a party, rather the user is a beneficiary. The offer of source code seems to be a way to facilitate the conveyance of source code through opt-in means separately from the object code rather than some legal trickery to create a user-licensee contract. While the offer may indeed convey a licensee-user obligation, a compliant distribution would attach a license anyway, converting the user into a licensee and licensor to licensee in a recursive fashion I wonder if lawyers specialize in this, it sounds very cool and not at all standard law, but somehow compatible with contract law IANAL
ww520 10mo ago
The customer spends money to buy the product along with the source code offered. It's part of the transaction. Not honoring part of the transaction is a breach of contract.
woah 10mo ago
And what are the damages?
abigail95 10mo ago
Offer and acceptance are part of how contracts are formed. There is no contract without there first being an offer. If you accept someones offer, provided it meets the rest of the criteria for a valid contract - congratulations you now have a contract. If the any party violates it, yes this is a breach of contract. > A written offer is not the same thing as a contract. An offer is a precondition and component of a contract

TZubiri 10mo ago

> This is not a GPL violation; it is a straight contract violation But GPL is a contract I think the distinction you are pointing would be between a gpl licensor-licensee contract, rather than a licensee-user contract. (IANAL)

teddyh 10mo ago
> But GPL is a contract Not according to the original reasoning by its creators, but opinions differ wildly. However, this is irrelevant to the point; the written offer, which is separate from the GPL, is what is failing to be honored, not the GPL. If you did not receive such a written offer, the GPL, in itself, makes no guarantee that you have the right to the source code.
- indymike 10mo ago
  > If you did not receive such a written offer, the GPL, in itself, makes no guarantee that you have the right to the source code Wrong. The requirement to provide source code under the GPL is primarily governed by Section 3 of the GNU General Public License v2 and Section 1 of the GNU General Public License v3. The whole point of the the GPL is to make it so users of software could get source code to the software.
  - teddyh 10mo ago
    Section 3 of GPL 2 states that the company must either give the source to the user alongside the product (in which case the user has the source already), or the company must give to the user a written offer of source code. Note that if the second option is taken, the company is not obligated by the GPL itself to give the source code to the user. It is then only the written offer which obligates the company to give the source code to the user; only the written offer gives the user the right to the source code. Not the GPL itself.
    - indymike 10mo ago
      The GPL forces the offer and provides the remedy if you don't provide source, so I'm not sure why this is so important to you?

JoshTriplett 10mo ago

This is an open legal question, which the Conservancy v Vizio case will hopefully change; in that case, Conservancy is arguing that consumers have the right to enforce the GPL in order to receive source code.

singpolyma3 10mo ago
The argument here is that, if there is an offer, they already do under standard contract law.
schmuckonwheels 10mo ago
This got buried on HN a few days ago which is a shame: https://social.kernel.org/notice/B1aR6QFuzksLVSyBZQ https://social.kernel.org/notice/B1aR6QFuzksLVSyBZQ Linus rants that the SFC is wrong and argues that the GPLv2 which the kernel is licensed under does NOT force you to open your hardware. The spirit of the GPLv2 was about contributing software improvements back to the community. Which brings us to the question: what is this guy going to do with (presumably) the kernel source? Force the Chinese to contribute back their improvements to the kernel? Of which there are likely none. Try and run custom software on his medical device which can likely kill him? More than likely. The judge's comments on the Vizio case are such that should this guy get his hands on the code, he has no right to modify/reinstall it AND expect it will continue to operate as an insulin pump. This is about as ridiculous as buying a ticket on an airplane and thinking you are entitled to the source code of the Linux in-seat entertainment system.
- ryandrake 10mo ago
  Why is it ridiculous? If the license says you have the right to obtain the source code to software that was distributed to you, then you have the right to obtain the source code. It doesn't matter what your intended use of it is.
  - schmuckonwheels 10mo ago
    It's a medical device that requires a prescription. You can't buy it off the shelf. They're not distributing software to you either. You must go through a medical equipment supplier who transfers the device to you after insurance has paid for some or all of it. For the same reason you can't find an airplane entertainment system in the trash and call up the company and demand source code.

immibis 10mo ago

In America, maybe this is the case. In Germany, it seems an end user can sue them directly for source code.

teddyh 10mo ago
Maybe. Who can and cannot sue is irrelevant to my point. But I seriously doubt that anyone can sue for source code. Someone might sue for damages, and the company might offer to settle by offering source code. But IIUC, no company can be sued and forced to give up any source code, unless the company itself chooses to do this instead of paying damages.
- immibis 10mo ago
  To repeat: Maybe that's how it works in America. In Germany, it seems you can sue for anything you're entitled to, not just money.
- AdelaideSimone 10mo ago
  I don't know how easy it is in Germany compared to the U S., but this is false. In the U.S., you absolute can sue (and it is extremely common) to force certain actions. See: constructive trust, mandatory injunction, prohibitive injunction, specific performance, recission, writ. In all likelihood, you would not receive the source code in the U.S., though. If deadset against release, the outcome would likely be that the offender would be fined and injoined from any further distribution.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]

kevin_thibedeau 10mo ago

The written offer with a limited term of three years is just one permitted method of distribution. If an offer was never made then they're not covered by that clause and are bound to comply by other means without the protection of the three year window.

teddyh 10mo ago
Yes. I did not cover these cases because approximately nobody does that. I mean, the absolutely simplest, and cheapest, way for companies to comply with the GPL is to ship the source code together with the software. Stick it in a zip file in a directory somewhere. The company can then forget the whole thing and not worry about anyone contacting them and ranting about source code and the GPL. But no company does that. The other simple way for companies to comply with the GPL is for companies to provide a link to download the source code at the same place that users download the program itself. If the user did not download the source code when they had the chance, that’s the user’s problem. This will also let the company ignore any GPL worries. No company does this, either. (The GPL provides a third way for individuals and non-profits, which is not relevant here.)

mkehrt 10mo ago

IANAL, but this is my understanding. What's the consideration in the written offer? Promises aren't enforceable in court. For a contract to be enforceable, it has to be an exchange of something, not a one sided offer. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration

tzs 10mo ago
There are substitutes for consideration. Search for "detrimental reliance" and "promissory estoppel" if you want to go down that rabbit hole.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

faidit 10mo ago

Doesn't seem incorrect if, extra steps aside, the company is ultimately obligated to provide the source code by the terms of the GPL.

tzs 10mo ago

> The GPL requires the company to send the user a written offer of source code It should be noted that this is just one of three options that someone who wants to distribute binaries of GPL code can choose from. It's the most commonly chosen one, and one is only available for noncommercial distribution, so the odds are good that this is the option they are using. The other available option is to accompany the binary with the source code. That one leads to an interesting possibility where someone could end up with a binary and there is no one obligated to provide source to them. As far as I know this has not actually arisen, but it seems like something that is bound to happen sometime. Suppose company X decides to make a generic hardware platform that other companies can buy to build their products on. X's platform is basically a small single board computer with WiFi, Bluetooth, dual, USB ports, a couple Ethernet ports, and some GPIO ports. X ports Linux to their hardware. When X ships a system it comes with an SD card with a Linux distribution installed including their custom kernel. It is configured to boot from the first SD card slot, and then to run a custom login system that looks at the second SD card slot and if there is a card in there it mounts it, looks for an executable on its root name application.exe, and runs that as root. X includes in the box a small thumb drive with a copy of the source code for everything on the SD card. The idea is that a company Y that wants to make something like a WiFi access point or an air quality monitor can buy these boards from X, put them in a case with whatever peripherals or sensors they need like air quality sensors, write the software for the application, put it on an SD card, and put that in the second SD card slot. So lets say Y buys 1000 of these systems from X, builds 1000 of their access points or whatever from them, and sells them. One of their customers asks Y for the source code of the GPL parts. Does Y have to provide it? I'd say they do not. They are not making copies or derivative works. They are just receiving physical copies from X and passing those on unmodified to their customers. This should fall squarely under the First Sale Doctrine in US copyright law, and similar rules in other jurisdictions. How about if they ask X for a copy? X has made copies and derivative works and distributed them. But X satisfied their GPL requirements by including a thumb drive with the source with each board they shipped to Y.