--=_courier-32707-1056959456-0001-2
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 07:57, ahorn@deorth.org wrote:
[snip]
> I'm still not seeing any evidence of anyone being blocked from obtaining
> the source code (although I haven't followed the whole thread)
=46rom what I gathered, people were irritated because Dell only supplied a
patch of what modifications they had made, against a known RedHat
kernel.
IANAL, but I think they have matched what the GPL required them to by
doing so. There is a relatively easy way to recreate exactly what they
did. A correctly worded request to the right place inside Dell should
perhaps even yield the SPM they used.
> I repeat, did anyone ask dell for source code for this supposed violation=
?
> They are not bound to _distribute_ the source code with their software
> only to make it available in a reasonable fashion upon request.
It was not clear, but it appeared that the source was not asked for.
There was a whole lot of complaining that it wasn't distributed without
being asked for though.
> Or am I missing something here ?
>=20
> (not being argumentative here by the way, this is really interesting
> discussion)
It is interesting, but it would be nice to have a professional legal
opinion on the matter.
/A
--=_courier-32707-1056959456-0001-2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQA+/+k1LYywqksgYBoRAjehAKCxLIQGQ9iWxcnDomVJru3MZo94egCeJs9L
6/5IftPgft5EnhB0zJhn8ic=
=6CBY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=_courier-32707-1056959456-0001-2--