Aren't they legally obligated to release the source code of whatever GPL software they ship? ie the version shipped that is

▲

resonious a day ago | parent | next [-]

By GPL, they're only obligated to release an offer that allows costumers to request the source code. They can still keep the source "closed" by default.

▲

globular-toast a day ago | parent [-]

No they have to actually fulfill that request too. Once someone has the source they are then free to distribute it.

▲

growse a day ago | parent [-]

I don't remember if this is in the original text, but is there a time constraints on distributing the source on request?

If a user asks for the source, and the distributor says "sure" and then delivers it 12 months later, have they violated the license?

	▲	globular-toast a day ago \| parent [-]
		It has to be the source of the distribution the user currently has a copy of. So they can't just say "sure" and then wait until the next public release. I'm not sure about timeliness, though.

▲

SXX a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is why most of Android outside of linux kernel is not GPL.

▲

pabs3 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

From other discussions, it sounds like they are shipping the copyleft source on time, only the permissive/pushover licensed stuff gets delayed source releases.