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.