LEGAL: LG Electronics LGPL violations

[Rob Landley]

On 02/23/2011 12:20 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 22, 2011 23:38:02 Rob Landley wrote:
>> On 02/22/2011 05:18 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, January 12, 2011 02:52:19 jenya wrote:
>>>> "RELEASE of 50PK550-ZE is dynamically linked now.
>>>> We recommend you update your TV with latest version and you can make
>>>> RELEASE without object files. "
>>>>
>>>> I replied that they were required to provide the object files for the
>>>> version that is installed on my TV when buying (am I right? Correct me
>>>> if not).
>>>
>>> i think this question is better posed to the SFLC.  from my non-lawyer
>>> understanding, if they are no longer distributing binary releases, the
>>> fact you received one in the past is no longer relevant.
>>
>> By that logic, if I pirate a bunch copies of Office, Microsoft can't go
>> after me for damages but can only get a cease and desist preventing me
>> from shipping any _more_ copies in future.  That's not actually how
>> copyright law works.
> 
> i was talking about license enforcement from jenya's point of view.  copyright 
> law is irrelevant when jenya doesnt hold any copyrights on the code in 
> question.

No it isn't.  The license terms obligate them to provide source code to
him, even years after they distribute the binaries.  Denys and I did a
big long explanation of our interpretation of the details here, and ran
it by the SFLC to polish out anything obviously wrong with it:

  http://busybox.net/license.html

(3B says 3 years but if they didn't provide a written offer with the
device there's a good case that the clock hasn't started yet.  Some
details may differ in LGPLv2 vs GPLv2, but the principle's the same.
The uClibc project could distance itself from busybox if it wanted to,
but probably only by claiming a more _rigid_ interpretation since Erik
Andersen founded both projects and he's onboard with the SFLC.)

So to be in compliance with the license terms, the company needs to
offer/deliver source code to Jenya if they created Jenya's binaries from
our copyrighted code.

You're right that if the company isn't in compliance with the license
terms Jenya hasn't got standing to sue, which is where the SFLC comes
in: as the designated legal representatives of the project's maintainers
and some senior developers, they do.

Complying with the license terms by satisfying Jenya's claims is the
issue the SFLC would be suing _about_.  That's not "irrelevant".

> -mike

Rob