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 had to distribute the source, since they were the "distributor". They dropped this later on and went after Apple's terms.

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?

I don't think anyone dropped the claim that Apple was a distributor. I don't see any way to make any kind of rational argument under US copyright law that they are not a distributor.

The question was whether or not they needed permission of the copyright holder of the GPL code in order to distribute. Contrary to widespread believe, distribution does not always require permission.

For instance, if you buy from Best Buy or Amazon a router that contains Linux firmware, then Best Buy or Amazon has in fact distributed Linux to you. Yet they have no obligation whatsoever to provide you with source code, or point you to where you can get it.

That's because the copies they are distributing are copies they got from the router manufacturer. Amazon and Best Buy are not making copies of their own for distribution, or modifying the copies they receive form the router maker before selling the router. They are just passing the copies through.

That puts them squarely under a section of copyright law called the "First Sale Doctrine" which basically says that the copyright owner's right to control distribution does not extend to individual copies that were legitimately distributed with permission of the copyright owner.

So, if Amazon or Best Buy wanted to make you agree to GPL incompatible terms for items you bought from them, there would be no problem. They could continue to sell Linux routers.

Compare to the App Store. Apple receives one copy from the developer. When a sale is made, Apple makes a new copy from that and distributes that new copy. That's the first distribution of that particular copy, and so does not benefit from the First Sale Doctrine.

Well, or possibly not if the routers were made outside the US, then first sale may not apply at all (e.g., the 9th Circuit in Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Omega, S.A.).

See also the EFF's blog at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/eff-asks-supreme-court...

I think Garrett's posts are pretty clear. It's the phone makers that need to become compliant, but as the creator of Android, Google could educate and encourage the phone makers.

Many organizations like the FSF choose not to aggressively pursue GPL compliance because they'd rather write code and they want to avoid creating a backlash (like "use GPL software, get sued").

Clearly the manufacturers are the distributors. It isn't Google's fault per-se but they are in a position to demand that the distributors are compliant with the GPL. As the article stated, they can require distributors to comply with the GPL if they want to use the Google/Android trademarks.

The author refers to a recent discussion about the GPL termination clauses. Does anyone have a link to that?

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.

See http://lwn.net/Articles/455013/, for example.

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.

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..

Do you understand you're totally off-topic? Distributors of Android also distribute the Linux Kernel, which is GPL. So they must comply with the GPL parts. That's it.

Would you care to inform us of what those differences are, by any chance?