29 Apr
2012
29 Apr
'12
4:41 p.m.
Hi all
For some time now there is a website witch offer a USB stick, a
slackware based Audio bundle full with GPL'd software.
I have some discussions with the provider, because he wouldn't make the
source available to his (possible) users, and he wouldn't make them
aware that they have the right to receive the source.
I have contacted license-violation(a)gpl-violations.org and get a fast
response first. On my question if they see a GPL validation they wrote
after visit the site :
Looks like it. On the website he/she claims that
everything is under
GPL. I would suggest contacting the person in question, gently
pointing
out to his/her obligations.
If you have already done so, let us know and we'll try again.
Well, I let them know that I've try it without success. Unfortunately I
didn't hear any more from them for more the 2 weaks.
Is anyone here on the list knowing what is to do now, what could we do
to make the provider aware that he must offer the source in the same way
then the binary's, and that he must make clear that users have the right
to receive the source.
I guess most of the Copyright-holders from the used applications are
members of this list.
At least, I still believe that no one how buy this stick, ever have a
interest in the source, so it is just a mater of respect for the GPL,
but, it's a shame for me to see the GPL validate in such a way and get
on top of that a response from the provider in a "Fuck off" attitude.
To bad that I need to provide the link to this crap here, so that you
could have a look at it:
http://www.getstudio1337.com/
here is the discussion about the issue:
http://www.linuxmusicians.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7928
any Ideas what to do ?
Or I'm completely wrong in my understand of the GPL?
greets
hermann
29 Apr
29 Apr
5:07 p.m.
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:41 AM, hermann <brummer-(a)web.de> wrote:
Is anyone here on the list knowing what is to do now,
what could we do
to make the provider aware that he must offer the source in the same way
then the binary's,
this part is not quite true. its generally accepted that as long as
the source is freel available from an identifiable online location,
then notifying people who received the binaries of their rights and
the location from which the source can be obtained is sufficient *if
there are no modifications*
5:19 p.m.
Am Sonntag, den 29.04.2012, 11:07 -0400 schrieb Paul Davis:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:41 AM, hermann
<brummer-(a)web.de> wrote:
But he fail already by notify people of there rights.
How could one say if there are modifications ?
Anyhow, for sure there is GPL'd software included, witch is modified,
and isn't available at a online location.
He claim it as a modified slackware "OS" build.
Is anyone here on the list knowing what is to do
now, what could we do
to make the provider aware that he must offer the source in the same way
then the binary's,
this part is not quite true. its generally accepted that as long as
the source is freel available from an identifiable online location,
then notifying people who received the binaries of their rights and
the location from which the source can be obtained is sufficient *if
there are no modifications* 
10:44 p.m.
On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 11:07 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:41 AM, hermann
<brummer-(a)web.de> wrote:
I agree with Paul. He's got all of the included package's web site
links on his web site. If you want to duplicate what he's done you can
just jump to all of those links, get all the source code, and build it
yourself. Thirty bucks doesn't sound like too high a price to avoid the
headaches though (assuming it works ;-)
Jan
Is anyone here on the list knowing what is to do
now, what could we do
to make the provider aware that he must offer the source in the same way
then the binary's,
this part is not quite true. its generally accepted that as long as
the source is freel available from an identifiable online location,
then notifying people who received the binaries of their rights and
the location from which the source can be obtained is sufficient *if
there are no modifications*
30 Apr
30 Apr
6:20 a.m.
Am Sonntag, den 29.04.2012, 15:44 -0500 schrieb Jan Depner:
On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 11:07 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
The link list is far away from "all".
eg.: libs, kernel, etc.
The price is not in question. But I think, if one use GPL'd software
commercial, the distributor must make sure that the source is available
to the users, I mean the complete source here.
This stick is a bit more then a bundle of applications were a link to
some project site will suite the requirements of the GPL.
hermann
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:41 AM, hermann
<brummer-(a)web.de> wrote:
I agree with Paul. He's got all of the included package's web site
links on his web site. If you want to duplicate what he's done you can
just jump to all of those links, get all the source code, and build it
yourself. Thirty bucks doesn't sound like too high a price to avoid the
headaches though (assuming it works ;-)
Jan
Is anyone here on the list knowing what is to do
now, what could we do
to make the provider aware that he must offer the source in the same way
then the binary's,
this part is not quite true. its generally accepted that as long as
the source is freel available from an identifiable online location,
then notifying people who received the binaries of their rights and
the location from which the source can be obtained is sufficient *if
there are no modifications* 
29 Apr
29 Apr
5:11 p.m.
On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 16:41 +0200, hermann wrote:
At least, I still believe that no one how buy this
stick, ever have a
interest in the source
I disagree. IMO it's ok if a small distro doesn't provide the source, if
they instead make clear, that the distro is open source and if they also
don't take money. IIRC Mepis some years ago had issues, because the
sources were not provided, but IMO it was ok. This USB stick product IMO
is a rip off, if they don't make clear that everybody has the right to
get the source codes.
2 Cents,
Ralf
PS: "REAPER"?
5:53 p.m.
Am Sonntag, den 29.04.2012, 17:11 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
On Sun, 2012-04-29 at 16:41 +0200, hermann wrote:
I guess you misunderstood me, I mean, that, if "you" buy this stick,
then "you" will properly never ask for the source, then you will be a
plain musician without any interest in "software source". Otherwise, you
will direct go to the source ad build your own stick, following the
instructions from this links:
http://slackermedia.info/html/
http://www.studioware.org/
At least, I still believe that no one how buy
this stick, ever have a
interest in the source
I disagree. IMO it's ok if a small distro doesn't provide the source, if
they instead make clear, that the distro is open source and if they also
don't take money. IIRC Mepis some years ago had issues, because the
sources were not provided, but IMO it was ok. This USB stick product IMO
is a rip off, if they don't make clear that everybody has the right to
get the source codes.
2 Cents,
Ralf
PS: "REAPER"?
5:51 p.m.
On 29.04.2012 16:41, hermann wrote:
For some time now there is a website witch offer a USB
stick, a
slackware based Audio bundle full with GPL'd software.
I have some discussions with the provider, because he wouldn't make the
source available to his (possible) users, and he wouldn't make them
aware that they have the right to receive the source.
I am irritated by the "(possible)".
Did you or someone else get the binaries from him and then tried to get
the source code or did you try to get the source code first?
Cheers,
Andreas
6 p.m.
Am Sonntag, den 29.04.2012, 17:51 +0200 schrieb Andreas Kuckartz:
On 29.04.2012 16:41, hermann wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, nor an expert of GPL. I have a understand of GPL,
witch I see validated here, but I cant say for sure that it is the fact.
No, I wouldn't buy those crap, and I didn't know anyone how buy it. But
in a discussion with the provider, he said that he wouldn't provide the
source, also not for regular users if they request it.
This is the second time this guy distribute sticks wich binary s and he
claim that he didn't need to provide the source. That is, what he
understand under the GPL.
greets
hermann
For some time now there is a website witch offer
a USB stick, a
slackware based Audio bundle full with GPL'd software.
I have some discussions with the provider, because he wouldn't make the
source available to his (possible) users, and he wouldn't make them
aware that they have the right to receive the source.
I am irritated by the "(possible)".
Did you or someone else get the binaries from him and then tried to get
the source code or did you try to get the source code first?
Cheers,
Andreas
6:33 p.m.
2012/4/29 hermann <brummer-(a)web.de>de>:
This is the second time this guy distribute sticks wich binary s and he
claim that he didn't need to provide the source. That is, what he
understand under the GPL.
As I understood the GPL, he/she doesn't have to offer the source code
to non-customers.
( GPL can be used commercially. )
But in the FAQ they say :
"
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source
code, the GPL says you must _ provide a written offer _ to distribute
the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the
binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this
written offer.
This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you
can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written
offer.
"
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
--
E.R.
8:58 p.m.
Am Sonntag, den 29.04.2012, 18:33 +0200 schrieb Emanuel Rumpf:
2012/4/29 hermann <brummer-(a)web.de>de>:
yes, that is how I understand it also, but he explizit say that he
wouldn't do that. He only distribute binarys, no source available, for
no-one ever. No " _ provide a written offer _ " ever :-(|)
Not for the included Applications, nor for the "OS" itself.
This is the second time this guy distribute sticks wich binary s and he
claim that he didn't need to provide the source. That is, what he
understand under the GPL.
As I understood the GPL, he/she doesn't have to offer the source code
to non-customers.
( GPL can be used commercially. )
But in the FAQ they say :
"
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source
code, the GPL says you must _ provide a written offer _ to distribute
the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the
binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this
written offer.
This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you
can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written
offer.
"
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
4373
days inactive
4374
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
11 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Andreas Kuckartz -
Emanuel Rumpf -
hermann -
Jan Depner -
Jeremy Jongepier -
Paul Davis -
Ralf Mardorf