On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 08:35:26AM -0700, Gomi No Sensei wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Gomi No Sensei <[1]gomi.no.sensei@gmail.com>
> Date: Sep 4, 2007 8:33 AM
> Subject: Fwd: PhotoVu Inquiry: 48889582 - 17" Frame, Open-source
> To: [2]license-violation@gpl-violations.org
>
> The following email is self-explanatory. The device sold at
> [3]www.photovu.com is based on a modified Debian, but the company will not
> disclose the source.
>
> The quote is: "We will never have an open platform as we do not have the
> resources to support such an open product in the field. It's not that we
> wouldn't like to, as we believe in open source and in fact use a
> customized base debian distribution with the addition of all our custom
> software on top. .... The last reason is why we weld our units shut and
> the aluminum metal must be cut and drilled to open it up!"
PhotoVu does *not* have to release source code of works they release in
binary form to any third party *unless* they fail to accompany their
digital photo frames with the corresponding code on a medium customarily
used for software interchange. I am quoting the requirements of section
2b) of version 2 of the GPL[1]. (I am also assuming that the code PhotoVu
is using is not so fresh that it has any portions licensed GPL version 3.)
The GPL also does not require the vendor to *tell* you if their product
ships with corresponding source code, though if they deceive you and you
are a U.S. resident, you may recourse to the consumer protection laws of
your state, or the state of Colorado, where PhotoVu claims to be
incorporated[2].
Given the tone of the email, I suspect they don't provide complete
corresponding source code as required by section 2b of the GPL2, and since
they have refused you in your capacity as "any third party" that source
code at any price (section 2c), I find reason to pursue a potential license
violation here.
The best way to find out is to find a PhotoVu customer ask learn from them
if they received either the complete corresponding source code on a DVD-ROM
or other medium (2b) or a written offer, valid for three years for the same
(2c).
To follow-up on something Gunnar Wolf said:
While (to the best of my knowledge) Software in the Public Interest, Inc.,
is not a copyright holder in any portion of Debian GNU/Linux, this is still
a matter worth bringing to SPI's attention. SPI owns certain U.S.
trademarks, and it is conceivable that retaining trademarked Debian logos
in a derived product while not honoring the copyright licenses on the
software comprising Debian GNU/Linux gives rise to a civil cause of action
against PhotoVu.
Accordingly, I am CCing the SPI Board of Directors.
A courteous letter from SPI's counsel setting out these issues may be all
that is required to achieve PhotoVu's compliance. Bradley Kuhn and Eben
Moglen have frequently counseled tact and patience when pursuing apparent
GPL violations. Assume ignorance or misunderstanding until and unless that
assumption is unsustainable.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.txt
[2] http://www.photovu.com/bio.html
In case it gets changed, I quote:
PhotoVu custom manufactures each digital picture frame at their
Boulder, Colorado facilities, using the finest individually made wood
frames and matboards, coupled with brand new electronic components,
resulting in a truly one-of-a-kind product. Customers can also order a
custom tailored frame and mat to match a given décor.
PhotoVu, LLC is a privately held and privately financed company
registered in the state of Colorado.
--
G. Branden Robinson | The basic test of freedom is
Debian GNU/Linux | perhaps less in what we are free to
branden@debian.org | do than in what we are free not to
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | do. -- Eric Hoffer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature