Do I have claim to the source-code?
Pan....@gmail.com
Could you please help me? I have a Linux-running set-top-box at home.
It is not mine, I rent it for a nominal month fee from my IP-TV
provider (Telefónica O2, Czech Republic).
Is my right to have the source-code? Is it their obligation to provide
it? Am I right that since the software is provided to me as the user I
have the rights defined in GPL?
Theank you, Ondrej Michalek
Christopher Browne
You have the right to the source code for Linux.
A set top box is presumably running a bunch of other software as well;
there is no certainty that you have any rights surrounding source code
to the other software.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="linuxfinances.info" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/emacs.html
"In America, we have a two-party system. There is the stupid
party. And there is the evil party. I am proud to be a member of the
stupid party. Periodically, the two parties get together and do
something that is both stupid and evil. This is called -
bipartisanship." -- Republican congressional staffer
John Hasler
> Could you please help me? I have a Linux-running set-top-box at home.
> It is not mine, I rent it for a nominal month fee from my IP-TV
> provider (Telefónica O2, Czech Republic).
> Is my right to have the source-code?
Not if you do not own the copies of the binaries.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Merijn de Weerd
> Ondrej Michalek writes:
>> Could you please help me? I have a Linux-running set-top-box at home.
>> It is not mine, I rent it for a nominal month fee from my IP-TV
>> provider (Telefónica O2, Czech Republic).
>
>> Is my right to have the source-code?
>
> Not if you do not own the copies of the binaries.
He does not own the hardware. But copyright-wise, rental is just
another act of distribution. So he has legally acquired a copy
of the binaries. Therefore he is entitled to a copy of the source.
Merijn
--
Remove +nospam to reply
John Hasler
> But copyright-wise, rental is just another act of distribution.
See
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000109----000-.html>
particularly (b)(1)(B)(i) and (d).
Merijn de Weerd
> Merijn writes:
>> But copyright-wise, rental is just another act of distribution.
>
> See
><http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000109----000-.html>
> particularly (b)(1)(B)(i) and (d).
Not sure how that's relevant. This gives people the right to
dispose of certain physical copies they lawfully acquire ("first
sale"). There are limitations on this right for computer programs
and it doesn't give you the right to rent out the lawfully
acquired copy.
What I'm saying is that you can't rent someone a piece
of software without a valid license. It's one of the exclusive
rights of 17 USC 106, item (3) to be precise. So if
Telefonica rents me a box with GPL software in it, they better
comply with the GPL and give or offer me the source.
John Hasler
> See
> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000109----000-.html>
> particularly (b)(1)(B)(i) and (d).
Merijn writes:
> What I'm saying is that you can't rent someone a piece
> of software without a valid license.
TITLE 17 Ch 1 § 109 (b)(1)(B)(i) says that you can if it is part of a
machine. § 109 (d) says that borrowers do not have first sale rights.
Tim Smith
You are overlooking a possibility. Company X manufactures the box, and
installs the GPL software on it. Company X sells that box, containing
the GPL software, to Telefonica. Company X also provides source code to
Telefonica, thus satisfying X's GPL requirements.
Telefonica takes that box, adds their software, and distributes it to
you. If they have not modified the software, and not copied it, but are
merely passing on that copy they received from Company X to you, they
are covered under first sale (or would be in the US, at least...anyone
know how first sale works in the actual country under discussion?).
This act of distribution does NOT require permission of the copyright
holder, and so Telefonica is under no GPL obligation to you. Neither is
Company X, as they were only obligated to Telefonica.
I think we are going to see this situation a lot with embedded devices,
like PVRs, cell phones, PDAs, routers, etc.. It is in the device
maker's interests to buy generic embedded software systems from
companies like Company X, and then run their code as applications on
them, and that's a perfect set up to hit this situation where first sale
lets there exist a legitimate GPL binary that is in the wild without
anyone being obligated to provide source to the user.
We'll also see a similar situation with used devices. Company Y makes a
PDA, for example, and they have modified or copied the GPL code.
Suppose Company Y decides to satisfy GPL by including in the box a
CD-ROM with the source code. Person Z buys that PDA. A year or two
later, Z gets a new PDA, and puts the old one up for sale on eBay. He's
long since lost that source CD-ROM. That's OK, as first sale protects
him. But now if you buy that used PDA, you will have GPL binary code,
and there will be no one obligated to provide you with source.
--
--Tim Smith