LEGAL: LG Electronics LGPL violations

[Rob Landley]

On 02/23/2011 05:18 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 23, 2011 14:18:11 Rob Landley wrote:
>> 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
> 
> yeah, it really is.  you yourself said so:
>> You're right that if the company isn't in compliance with the license
>> terms Jenya hasn't got standing to sue
>> .  The license terms obligate them to provide source code to
>> him, even years after they distribute the binaries.
> 
> 3 years isnt relevant if the company simply doesnt bother to comply with that 
> release (which is what LV seems to be doing for their static builds).  the 
> penalty for non-compliance from Jeny'a pov is that they no longer get to 
> distribute the binaries.  which is what they've done.

1) The SFLC has gotten source releases out of companies.

2) They're telling him to upgrade to a new version, which they have no
incentive to reliably distribute source for, and your advice to people
is to accept that because we set up an enforcement mechanism purely for
our own entertainment which should never actually be _used_.

If Jenya decided not to go through with it, fine, but you saying that
the SFLC isn't ever worth messing with is yet another strange judgement
call of yours which I strongly disagree with.

Rob