|
Authored by: pem on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 04:34 PM EDT |
http://lwn.net/Articles/503025/
Unfortunately, it doesn't really describe any scenarios other than "vendor
made a mistake."
I'm sure that the FSF is technically correct that Canonical wouldn't be
responsible for that in and of itself.
Liability would accrue either if, in order to actually get the business,
Canonical had to indemnify the box vendor against FSF/GPL issues, OR, as I have
posited, Canonical upgraded any of the boxes on behalf of the vendor during the
warranty period, which could possibly be read under the GPL as being part of the
original transaction.
Canonical doesn't address this latter issue in the post. Perhaps they felt it
was obvious -- it seemed an obvious concern to me. Maybe it wasn't obvious to
the FSF, but they haven't directly addressed it either.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|