public inbox for
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jonathan Larmour <>
To: Gary Thomas <>
	eCos Maintainers <>
Subject: Re: Arcom GPL violation?
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:27:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1107183676.18185.20.camel@hermes>

Gary Thomas wrote:
> Note: this is really a topic for the eCos maintainers (of which I am
> included), so I've cc'd them to this reply. (sorry for the duplication)
> On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 14:43 +0000, CLUGSTON wrote:
>>Dear Gary,
>>I have purchased a VIPER board from Arcom UK that came pre-flashed 
>>with Redboot. There was a problem with the Flash which ment in the 
>>end that I had to return the board, but this problem lead me to inquire 
>>after the source code for Redboot. It turns out that they wanted £100 
>>or about $180 USD for a 'Reboot Development' CD-Rom. I explained that 
>>by my understanding of the GPL that there where obliged to make the 
>>modifications available to anyone, especially anyone who has payed 
>>for a board with it embedded into it. They said that their engineers 
>>had spent the time making it unique to the Viper and therefore they 
>>have to charge for it.
>>Can you give me any clarification on whether or not they are allowed 
>>to do this or not before I purchase the CD?
>>Sorry for the direct email, but I didn't want to disscuss this on the 
>>mailing list. I have included below a section of a similar discussion 
>>from the list about 18mths ago that there was no follow up to.
> This is definitely *not* allowed under the GPL.  They can charge you a
> fee, but only to the limit of what it costs them to produce the sources
> on a distribution medium.  From section 3 of GPL (rev 2):
>   3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
>     a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
>     source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
>     1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
>     b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
>     years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
>     cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
>     machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
>     distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
>     customarily used for software interchange; or,
>     c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
>     to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
>     allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
>     received the program in object code or executable form with such
>     an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
>>Thanks for any information you can offer.
> I don't know how you can push them on this though.  Perhaps the other
> maintainers can make some suggestions.

Arcom have been decent in the past and made contributions. I would imagine 
it's more likely to be disconnect and miscommunication within Arcom rather 
than anything deliberate, so we don't need to come out with all guns 
blazing assuming the worst.

Steven, if you think you've already effectively pointed out what Gary says 
(which is entirely correct) we can take this on. As copyright holders we 
have much more clout.

I will make an initial discreet enquiry now, but (Steven) let us know 
whether you want to talk to them again first.

It may also help that Arcom are based in Cambridge UK, as are many of the 
eCos maintainers.

> Note: you should have also received the full sources to their Linux port
> if they distributed that as part of the product.


Although to be clear, you only get sources to the binaries you have 
received (in whatever form) so it may not include any fancy development 
tools they bundle - I don't know if they do.

eCosCentric    The eCos and RedBoot experts
Visit us at Embedded World 2005, Nürnberg, Germany, 22-24 Feb, Stand 11-124
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine

  reply	other threads:[~2005-01-31 16:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <>
2005-01-31 15:04 ` Gary Thomas
2005-01-31 16:27   ` Jonathan Larmour [this message]
2005-01-31 15:15 CLUGSTON
2005-01-31 17:28 CLUGSTON
2005-01-31 18:29 ` Jonathan Larmour

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).