It's already been discussed. They weren't in violation of GPL just yet. But we all appreciate the added pressure you and the rest of the dev community put on HTC. Doesn't matter if it was threats or mere consumer demand. Clearly, something worked.
It really doesn't matter anymore, but i don't know who told you they weren't in violation of the GPL for the Linux Kernel. But according to the guy I contacted at GPL-Violations.org they were, and it was definitely not the first time either. Half the people discussing it have never even looked at the GPL, instead interjecting opinions and passing along the interpretations of others.
I'm not saying that was the case where you got your info, but that's what I've seen from many "$hit-house lawyers" in the forums, here and elsewhere.
Just my 2 cents...like you and I both said though, doesn't really matter anymore and I'm just glad HTC did the right thing in a timely manner!
In all honesty, I probably shouldn't have posted so matter-of-factly. I'm just a law student, and I've not studied the GPL. From what I can understand just from reading through briefly it is that HTC had 30 days to rectify their "violation," a violation being that they did not release source code licensed under the GPL.
See § 8. Termination, in relevant part:
Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is
reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the
violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have
received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that
copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after
your receipt of the notice.
Seeing as the phone and software was released less than a month ago, it would seem that they were still within their grace period. But that's assuming the "copyright holder" notified them. In this case, I believe the copyright holder is Google, and it wouldn't come as a surprise to see el Goog providing one of their biggest mobile os distributors with a little bit of leniency.
In a nutshell, it is my impression that it plays out like this:
- HTC releases tbolt with kernel licensed under GPL
- Consumers purchase tbolt, gain right to obtain source
- If consumers request source, HTC needs to comply
- If HTC doesn't comply, copyright holder must notify them
- if copyright holder notifies them, they have 30 days to rectify the situation
My gut tells me this gets hung up at #4 when dealing with a time frame of only a month.
As you said, it doesn't really matter, but I learned a little bit by looking into this. If anyone has further (accurate) information to share, feel free.
Otherwise, happy over/underclocking!
Anyone with more knowledge is welcome to chime in
