Re: GPL violators (charging for a Linux kernel by itself and thencharging again for source)

[Richard Weinberger]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Phil Turmel <philip@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 01/03/2014 05:07 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Eric Appleman <erappleman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> Wasn't the whole idea of a fee being permitted an acknowledgment that
>>> physical distribution of source was acceptable if electronic was not
>>> possible (low bandwidth ISP, security concerns, etc).
>>
>> GPLv2 states:
>> "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
>> you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a
>> fee."
>
> Yeah, that's section #1.  Charge all you want for general distribution.
>
> But you are forgetting section #3, which kicks in if you distribute in
> compiled or executable form.  It limits the fee for separate source code
> delivery to "no more than your cost of physically performing source
> distribution"
>
> Only your customers are entitled to that service, though.

Not customers. Anyone who got an binary from you (no matter how).
GPLv2 only cares about distribution of binaries not customers.

But this kind of discussion should move to legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

-- 
Thanks,
//richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/