The procedure for a GPL incident (I don’t like to use the word violation myself, I’d hate for the tables to be turned one day), was actually followed quite well.

Here, HTC released code not as quickly as they should have. It should have been online from day one. Under recent interpretations of GPL by FSF (hardened in GPLv3), HTC wouldn’t be charged with a crime, but would simply lose rights to distribute. But, since the authors didn’t file a complaint, they didn’t lose those rights. Once the code is online, HTC would have regained rights to distribute.

The other option would be for a stakeholder in the community to have sued HTC, but injunctive relief there would take much longer in a court of law, as the “immediate damage” measure wouldn’t warranty injunctive relief before a ruling.

HTC then issued the source code, realizing that they could lose rights to the underlying GPLed source code… mostly due to public outrage.

In short, companies lag. It happens. Google lagged big time when sharing Chromium source code. It’s like a bank or a wireless provider screwing up your account, there is little to no recourse about it.

Now, I’m not telling you all to shrug your shoulders, there should be some sort of built-in penalty for this bad behavior. But, until there is, you can’t blame free riders for the free rider problem. You have to point the finger at the system. Is there an easy answer? No. Even if the GPL outlined strict, easy complaint processes, they would just be ignored… much like true violators of the GPL do so every day.

In short, this is actually a case of GPL working. Constant vigilance is a way of life for the GPL, the size of the company doesn’t matter. Keep in mind, it’s often not just intent, but language barriers and regional barriers that prevent the timely sharing of code. It could have been sitting all along on an HTC server in Taiwan (where they are headquartered)… we likely won’t know until long after it matters anymore.

P.S. On an unrelated note, I would actually argue that Microsoft slowly wanted Hyper-V kernel extensions published. They pose no technical harm to the Hyper-V patents themselves, and now make it a checkbox measure to integrate Hyper-V into an app. Microsoft wasn’t forced as much as they wanted to do it slowly and make as much news as possible… all the while putting their profitable hooks in the Linux kernel (pun intended).

Incorrect, I’m afraid. They broke copywirght law – exactly which one depends on jurisdiction, but just about every country on the planet has a very similar law. You’re not permitted to copy and distribute copyrighted works without a specific licence to do so. And HTC didn’t have one at the time they were distributing. That’s a breach of copyright law.

> Thirdly, the only people who have the RIGHT to demand the source
> code from HTC (as jamesdoe states) are owners of the HTC Hero – sort
> of.

Absolutely incorrect. HTC would have been distributing under section 3(b) of GPLv2; this explicitly states that *any third party* has the right to require source. Read the clause – it is very clear.

> Generally put, anyone who receives a binary version of the kernel from
> the HTC hero rom is entitled to the code – but you can only demand it
> from the person who gave it to you.

No, wrong again. It’s quite probable that many people getting copies of the related works will have been passed them under section 3(c) of GPLv2, since this will often be a non-commercial distribution. This explicitly passes the rights to source from each recipient to the next one in the chain. Once again – read the licence. It’s very clear about this.

> What i mean is that if I didn’t have a Hero and then went off and
> downloaded a kernel from say cyanogen then its cyanogen who i
> demand the source from (not HTC).

Possibly – but you could also get it from any non-commercial entitty under section 3(c), and that would give you the right to obtain source from the last “upstream” commercial entity that distributed it – right back to HTC,

> Forthly: it may be true that propriatary drivers are derivative and hence
> GPL, but seriously look around and see all those binary kernel-tainting
> drivers out there, there are bucket loads (alot of them are circling around
> the arm platform too). With no one to chase them over it, there’s not alot
> thats going to happen to them.

Well, GPL violations are tracked. You’re right that not all of them have been brought into compliance yet – but that doesn’t mean it’s a legitimate state of affairs. These things get sorted eventually – this is why Microsoft were forced to publish source to their kernel mods a few weeks back.

Most of the time, GPL issues are sorted out without court action. But that doesn’t mean that such litigation won’t happen – just that it is more effective to deal with such problems through discussion, rather than litigation. Ask Edimax about that…

Vic.

Secondly though, this is untrue: “it would make no difference. HTC broke the law.”. They broke a licensing agreement, different fish.

Thirdly, the only people who have the RIGHT to demand the source code from HTC (as jamesdoe states) are owners of the HTC Hero – sort of. Generally put, anyone who receives a binary version of the kernel from the HTC hero rom is entitled to the code – but you can only demand it from the person who gave it to you. What i mean is that if I didn’t have a Hero and then went off and downloaded a kernel from say cyanogen then its cyanogen who i demand the source from (not HTC).

Forthly: it may be true that propriatary drivers are derivative and hence GPL, but seriously look around and see all those binary kernel-tainting drivers out there, there are bucket loads (alot of them are circling around the arm platform too). With no one to chase them over it, there’s not alot thats going to happen to them.

@jamesdoe – seriously, enough with the trolling, lets get a ruler and i’ll compare yours and mine and i guarantee you i’m worth more then you and yet im a foss hippy.

anyhow, have a good week end!

It doesn’t matter how the Hero looks. This code is just for the kernel, it is not the complete android system from the phone. They released what they were legally required to release.

We still don’t have any of the code for what makes it look good.

But as for people’s right to ask for the source code – yes, they *are* entitled to it. It is perfectly legal to acquire the object code without owning a HTC Hero, and anyone who does so has a right to the source code, since HTC did not distribute under section 3(a).

And what is more – we’ve got it.

Vic.