Some people had difficulties to get access to modified sources in the recent past, or the GPL license contract has not been delivered, or a device didn't come with a statement that is carries OS-firmware, or source code was denied access after requesting it.
No matter if you deal with hardware carrying OS-firmware, or simply downloaded OS-Software:
According to the GPL V3 the sources need to be available, you need to be informed about the fact that OS-Software is involved and you should have got the GPLV3 - license in full text format.
If you experience any of such issues, please post them here. They will be taken care of.
Further information can be found here:
Thanks for standing up for the interests of the community!
Sources are not available for the GPLv3 FOCBOX software
Customer service denies request for source code.
Enertion has dodged me from day one saying that they purchased some kind of license (I really can't remember exactly because it was total BS) in order to not provide their "custom" source code. Being that I work with a team that deals with opensource work I know this is just crazy! I'm pretty sure it's Enertions customer service that just doesn't what GPL even means. I would've thought that they brought it to someone's attention though. I have so many emails that I just can;t go through at the moment, so I'll post just two that proves they've violated other than there being no source on their website which is just blatant.
This was the only response. I'm guessing when said CS agent figured out what I was asking he got scared and ghosted me.
https://imgur.com/V54WBL3
And this... Which they say they are not authorized? It's opensource! Everyone is authorized. It;s the whole point. I will update this post with the many more pics when I get the chance. But so far I've still not seen any source since last year around December when I first requested.
https://imgur.com/XMfZ0sd
Just a small correction: What they told you could in theory be true. Copyright law says that the copyright owner can set the rules for copying and distribution. Those rules could be: "hand me the money", like when you buy a Harry Potter book. Or "do whatever you want". Or... You can set specific rules. This is where the GPL comes in. It sets specific rules for copying.
But the copyright owner can still give a different licence to other people.
Hi Rodger, there are multiple copyright holders involved and on top of that Benjamin didn't sell a commercial license. In consequence the sources need to be available for the customers. The GPL is pretty clear about that. If you demand the sources, you ned to get access. Also customers need to be informed about the fact that the device contains OS-Software, the GPLV3 license needs to be distributed along with the product and the customers needs to be told how he can get access to the sources. These three things need to be nailed if you sell hardware with OS-Source code on.
In addition to that: If you re-distribute software, you ned to make sure that customers can see it is a modified version + the full GPL license text needs to be incorporated into the GUI and sources need to be available. People need to have easy access to that kind of information. If companies sell hardware with GPled software incorporated, they can't ignore all of that. Ignoring it means you work without a license (the GPL terminates itself automatically), which means you are breaching someones copyright. Easy as that.
VESC-Based code is licensed under the GPLV3, so the GPL has to be respected.
Frank
Actually, these restrictions are not compatible with the GPL license. You cannot add restrictions that aren't in the license - the whole idea of GPL is that anyone that have access to the source can use it as he/she sees fit, except for what's required by the GPL license.
Of course since VESC is a registered trademark anyone that aren't licensed to use the trademark cannot use the VESC logo in e.g. VESC Tool (or even call a modified version "VESC Tool" or "VESC firmware" I guess!), which kindof takes care of "making sure that customers can see it is a modified version".
Is any action being taken against Enertion for their breach of the license? The usual first action is to inform the violator of the breach and give them a chance to comply. But only the copyright holder(s) are legally authorized to take action to enforce the license.
Hi Franck (Tit for tat.. :-) )
You're not Benjamin. And knowing Benjamin less than you, I still don't think he sold a commercial license. What I said was that IF Benjamin sold a commercial license (which as you say is difficult if he has accepted contributions from others without them signing over the copyright to him), THEN the statement could be true.
Everything else you say is based on the distribution falling under GPLV3.
Hi Rodger, you are correct, if he would have sold....
But that is simply not the case, so everyone selling Hardware with VESC-based Firmware on, or distributing VESC-based Software must accept the fact that the GPLV3 is the binding license for them. The idea is that the code base stays open.
https://vesc-project.com/Ethos
GPL Violations:
Will be followed up and are no fun. Read the GPL V3 license contract with care.
Note: According to section 8 of the GPL V3, copyright holders of code may explicitly and finally terminate your license to use their code!
Frank
Is enertion still violating the GPLv3 license or have they posted the source code?
It's mostly academic for me at this point, but I'm curious whether closed-source additions to the applications directory are allowed to be distributed.
If you make closes source additions, you need to read the GPL with utmost care. As soon as something is in a static relation to the GPLed code (for example static linking), the problems start. The GPL wants to prevent that GPLed code is pulled into the proprietary direction. If you add code, the code also needs to be put under the same license as the original license. In this case the GPL V3.