dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
45
TechNut2
join:2010-05-17
canada

TechNut2 to Guspaz

Member

to Guspaz

Re: exploring the alcatel lucent cellpipe 7130

said by Guspaz:

said by TechNut2:

Bell would be indemnified by the manufacturer. Aka, Bell does not "produce" the product, they simply resell it. Under commercial terms, Sagemcom would cover them.

it's moot anyway. If you can use google, "sagemcom gpl" would have taken you to this link,

»opensource.sagemcom.com/

You're confusing patent law and copyright law. You can't be indemnified against a crimimal act. Sagemcom does not own the software they're distributing, and neither does Bell. It doesn't matter where Bell got the software, Bell is the one distributing it to you.

Also, googling for "manufacturer name gpl" is irrelevant, since it has no bearing on the GPL. The GPL says the binaries must come with either the source or an offer of the source. Having to google for the source is a violation of the GPL, and as such, copyright infringement.

I have worked on these kinds of agreements before. It's covered by the manufacturer. Bell is not technically distributing the software. A derivative work, is changing the GPL'd software itself. Changing the logos or web interface developed by ALU, would not be a derivative work for the GPL. As we have seen by reading these forums on the Voltage issue, users on this forum are not legal experts by any means. Take it from someone who deals with corporate agreements of this kind, your theory is not right. The GPL itself is very clear, if you modify the software, the source needs to be available, otherwise, you are "Free to use" as you see fit if you do not modify it.

Under your logic Guspaz, the guy who sells a Android phone at a cell phone hut in the mall is "distributing" GPL software too. That's not the case. If the guy in the hut in the mall, modifies the linux kernel, and sells the phone, he would need to publish the code. If all he is doing is reselling without modification, then, no need. In this case, ALU is responsible for being compliant with the license. I know (after working with them years ago), that they have a strong FOSS program in place. Trust me, all of the telco hardware providers worry about open source. In Canada, its a major concern. China and others, well, that's where attention should be focused. Indemnity agreements DO cover patent and copyright issues. The only way Bell is on the hook, is if they modify the source code themselves. That's not something that Bell typically does, as they like to procure product, not do R&D on it.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz

MVM

You're incorrect. Bell is distributing the binaries, stripping those binaries of the appropriate notices is a violation.

Modification is irrelevant. Section 3 of the GPL merely says you may copy and distribute binaries if you do one of the things (accompany with source, or an offer of the source either from you or that you got with it).

If a guy in the phone hut is selling a retail boxed Android phone, that phone will have the GPL offer of source somewhere in it (often in the legal fine print in the manual). If he's selling a bare phone, he's guilty of copyright infringement.
JMJimmy
join:2008-07-23

JMJimmy to TechNut2

Member

to TechNut2
Also, Bhell would have had to modify it to work with it's stingers wouldn't they?
TechNut2
join:2010-05-17
canada

TechNut2 to Guspaz

Member

to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

You're incorrect. Bell is distributing the binaries, stripping those binaries of the appropriate notices is a violation.

Modification is irrelevant. Section 3 of the GPL merely says you may copy and distribute binaries if you do one of the things (accompany with source, or an offer of the source either from you or that you got with it).

If a guy in the phone hut is selling a retail boxed Android phone, that phone will have the GPL offer of source somewhere in it (often in the legal fine print in the manual). If he's selling a bare phone, he's guilty of copyright infringement.

Seriously, did you actually read what you typed? That makes no sense whatsoever Guspaz. You are confusing distribution of software with distribution of product to a end user. End user to ALU and from the license perspective is Bell, unless Bell makes any modification to GPL related code. "selling a bare phone, he's guilty of copyright infringement", you make yourself seem silly. End users are generally exempted from license issues, by indemnity or other legal vehicles, because they USE the product, they do not produce it. Bell USES the product, they do not produce it. An end user selling a phone, is not breaking any law, unless they do not have the rights to sell it. You are twisting some wording to meet your intent, but that does not make you right. The license in and of itself needs to be interpreted in greater commercial terms and common-law terms. Maybe it is different in QC, but in the rest of Canada, your argument is a false theory. No judge in Canada would find a end user who sold a phone guilty of any infringement whatsoever for simply using and buying/selling the device without a manual.

BTW, Roop, it's awesome you have been able to get into the device, that's very cool stuff! Didn't mean to hijack your thread, just when people pipe up with conspiracy crap, that's just plain wrong, it makes everyone on these forums look bad.
TechNut2

TechNut2 to JMJimmy

Member

to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:

Also, Bhell would have had to modify it to work with it's stingers wouldn't they?

No, The Stingers are owned by ALU. So, they would be modifying there own code to do it. That code, as long as it is not based on a FOSS license, would not need to be published/released.

Remember, code running on a Linux system that is developed by you, is not considered a derivative work (Linus has this in the kernel modified GPL license file). Even binary blobs or other closed drivers are not considered derivatives, BUT, that has not been testing court to my knowledge.

The only modification Bell will do is modify the HTML interface for their customers (if that). That's not a derivative work, and is not under the GPL. So, no need to release it to anyone.

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to TechNut2

MVM

to TechNut2
said by TechNut2:

BTW, Roop, it's awesome you have been able to get into the device, that's very cool stuff! Didn't mean to hijack your thread, just when people pipe up with conspiracy crap, that's just plain wrong, it makes everyone on these forums look bad.

Blatant copyright infringement by distributing software directly in contradiction to its license, in a manner agreed by experts on that license to be a violation, is not "conspiracy crap". Claiming otherwise is just plain ignorance.