"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License."
They should be covered as an aggregation, provided the LGPL was intact.
The contention is that the ffmpeg code was "cut and pasted" without attribution and without preserving the license (e.g. the LGPLv2 LICENSE file). Obviously I can't check this because I don't have a clone and the repository is now blocked behind the DMCA enforcement. But at least Github/Microsoft seem to agree that there was a violation.
Wrong. A DMCA notice is not a court order and Microsoft/Github are not legally required to follow it. They do take on liability for the purported violation if they do so but if it's a nonsense allegation that doesn't matter.
Not sure what you're trying to say here. DMCA takedown enforcement is 100% the responsibility of the Online Service Providers per statute. It's the mechanism by which they receive safe harbor from liability for hosting infringing content.
Yes, but Microsoft/Github do not make any determination about the validity of the claim.
Once a valid (from a process perspective) claim is submitted, the provider is required to take the claimed content down for 10 days. From there the counter claim and court processes can go back and forth.
I think you may be astonished to realize a (the?) majority of DMCA takedowns are neither checked nor legitimate...
You can post your thoughts, feelings, and opinions on google blog, and I can submit a DMCA and google is required to take down your thoughts feelings and opinions immediately without verification.
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.
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.)
It doesn't matter what form it takes. Compiled binaries of GPL code are being distributed. The recipients of that binary are entitled to the source of the GPL portions in a usable form:
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."
The GPL here doesn't extend beyond the kernel boundary. Userland is isolated unless they have GPL code linked in there as well. If they were careless about the linkage boundaries then that's on them.
You've gone off the rails by narrowly focusing on a passage of a software license without understanding the contract law and copyright law environments that those licenses and transactions exist in.
If you file a statement of claim to a court that is just riffing on the theme of "Compiled binaries of GPL code are being distributed" - you won't get anywhere.
I implore you to learn how to identify the parties involved, which contracts get formed when and between whom, de minimis, exemptions to copyright, and the non-copyrightable parts of code.
The recipient of that object code is the medical device supplier, not the end-user.
It's subsequently transferred to you after presenting a prescription, without any accompanying offer of source code.
In other words, assume you are the second owner in all cases when it comes to certified medical equipment.
AFAIK if you find an Android phone in the trash, you are not entitled to source either since you never received the offer of source during a purchase transaction. You know that little slip of paper you toss as soon as you open some new electronics that says "Open Source Software Notice".
> In other words, assume you are the second owner in all cases when it comes to certified medical equipment.
By that logic, _any_ company can effectively ignore the GPL constraints by just selling it to a reseller, first; one that they have a contract with to _not_ offer the source code when they re-sell it.
It is my understanding that, if I use GPL in my code, and I distribute it to someone that then re-distributes it to someone else... the GPL is still binding. I don't see why that wouldn't be the case with hardware using GPL'd software.
Would you disagree with this logic?
You distribute GPL code to me on a dvd. I give that dvd to someone else. I have not made a copy of the source code, so copyright does not come into this. If instead I copied the dvd and emailed the iso to someone else I would be distributing and copyright comes into it.
No it doesn't. It can not bind someone that has not agreed to it. A failure to agree might mean they are infringing on copy-right and is liable for damages, but it is wrong to say it binds everyone that distributes it.
They are distributing it without the right to distribute it. The only thing that allows them to distribute it is agreeing to the license/contract to do it in a specific way. If they don't do that, they don't have the right to distribute it. The person they got it from saying otherwise doesn't change that.
the license travels with the copy, it is what allows the copy.
if the license does not travel with the copy, then the copy is unlicensed and is a copyright violation. the license carries restrictions and grants rights. those aspects cannot be violated or the license ceases to exist.
you don't know what you are talking about, so stop guessing.
So when I buy a product with GPL code via Amazon, Amazon is the one with the rights to receive the source? That medical supplier is getting paid via the medical coverage the end user is paying for.
Competent management would have implemented a trial run to evaluate the feasibility of the plan. These sociopaths ensured their own failure by lunging for the prize without realizing they stepped off a cliff.
I have a nylon fuel tank on a 2003 bike and it has swollen from ethanol such that it is tricky to remount after removal because it expands when unconstrained by the frame. Ducati had a recall over this but Triumph got away without having to do one. I have been running ethanol-free for a few years now because a station is near me but that doesn't fix the problem.
They should be covered as an aggregation, provided the LGPL was intact.
reply