Re: GPL: Does a conveyor's violation result in rights to users?

[Ciaran O'Riordan]

"Elvey" <gg-public@matthew.elvey.com> writes:
> E.g. Assume a user receives a binary-only copy of the firmware bundled
> with a hardware device based on a GPL'd OS (no source or offer of
> source is provided).

This is a copyright violation.

> Does the GPL give the user the right [...] to provide or obtain
> newer versions of the GPL'd firmware that the vendor sells (e.g. to or
> from another client)?

You're asking: If someone has a binary and no source, can they redistribute
the binary?  The answer is no.

> Anyone aware of discussion as to whether the GPLv3 should (or could)
> make a user entitled to do this?

GPLv3 should clearly not entitle users to distribute binaries when they
cannot distribute the source.

If a binary is available but no source, then that is a problem and the
solution is to tell the distributor of the binary that they have to either
cease distribution (and maybe pay damages) or start providing source code
(and maybe also pay damages, or at least legal fees).

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \  GPLv3 and other work supported by
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \   Fellowship: http://www.fsfe.org