Who is the distributor? Is it Google? Is it HTC/Samsung/Motorola? The FSF has had issues with defining this before, like with the iOS VLC application, where some of the developers felt that having a link to the source in the app as well as on the website was enough, but other devs and the FSF initially felt that the Apple app store <i>had</i> to distribute the source, since they were the "distributor". They dropped this later on and went after Apple's terms.<p>So absent a clear definition, why is this Google's fault more than the manufacturers? More importantly, why isn't the FSF or GNU going after all the manufacturers for GPL violations? These are pretty cut and dry license violations, so why isn't anyone actually doing anything about it?
The author refers to a recent discussion about the GPL termination clauses. Does anyone have a link to that?<p>I'm curious what would happen if a Linux copyright holder (e.g. any contributor?) would actually terminate a manufacturer's license and file an injunction.
Unfortunately, the author of said article fails to understand the differences pertaining to FOSS licensing when we consider and compare items in the user space and the kenel space. And that gets more complicated when you add the RTOS dependency and its modules to the mix.<p>Its a shame, the author could have chosen to educate rather than hyperbole which would have made afar greater impression on those groups the author wants to change the minds of..