Selling Ubuntu Touch Devices and Respecting the License

Question_Asker

Sorry, I forgot to mention that the plan is for Ubuntu Touch to be pre-installed onto lightly used Android smartphones already available on the market, and there is no plan of manufacturing hardware or anyhow building products such as smartphones on the hardware level.

Does your advice still apply in this situation?

Question_Asker

@projectmoon

Unfortunately, there is no prior experience here with redistributing FOSS in any form, and that means there is no experience in how to comply with the licenses in the best ways possible for both parties. Any explanation of how to comply in practice in this specific situation, would be greatly appreciated.

For example, does "providing GPL sources" mean that a seller is supposed to provide a link to the source code of Ubuntu Touch in some form, or is there a need for maintaining an always up-to-date mirror just to redistribute a device which has Ubuntu Touch pre-installed? Another question would be of whether Ubuntu Touch does not provide a link to the source code in one of its default menus and therefore redistributing such operating system pre-installed without any modifications could come with a potential satisfiable solution by default.

As I kind of mentioned before, any help is and will be truly and fully appreciated.

gpatel-fr

@Question_Asker

partly, as the problem shifts then to the resale laws in your country.
There are some countries where laws are protecting first-time sellers against competition from second hand resellers, there is some justification for that because original sellers can face warranty questions in case of problems while they have no involvement with modifications done by second hand resellers.

Question_Asker

@gpatel-fr

Fortunately, the country in which the store would operate has a strong second-hand market for many types of merchandise, including electronic devices, and fairly positive laws in this regard. So that would not be an issue. Thank you very much for your reply. I appreciate it.

projectmoon

Question_Asker Well, I am not a lawyer. But in general the obligation of the GPL is that you must provide the source code upon request from your licensee (which is someone you have sold your GPL-containing product to). That means you must provide it, not point to some upstream source. But there are many ways to fulfill the obligations of the GPL. Technically you don't even have to put the code on an online repository. You can mail it to people on CD if you want lol.

So the simplest way to do this, is to maintain a mirror of the code on a git forge (GitHub, self-hosted Foregjo, GitLab, etc), and then when or if people ask for the code, point them at that link. Or just put the link in a manual. Which is exactly what Volla does.

Edit: and to be honest, maybe upstream source is enough, if your source is entirely upstream? I dunno. Again, not a lawyer.

Question_Asker

@projectmoon

Thank you for taking your time to try to help. I appreciate it.

So, I read some of the GPL, could anyone tell me if I understood it correctly?

From what I understood, there would be a need to have copies of full source code for all the versions of Ubuntu Touch that were flashed onto the sold smartphones, each kept for at least three years since it was received by the customer. After the customer receives the device, they may update it and, potentially, later when requesting the copy of the source code, they may forget what version they bought the device with, so the store will need to keep track of what version of Ubuntu Touch each phone had before the sale succeeded, because the store is forced by the license to provide the source code to the user on request, no matter whether they are aware of what version they received it with, since there was only one version offered, the one flashed onto the device before the sale. Then, the store would be able to provide to the customer the version which they no longer have on their device, and the store will need to explain to them that for the source code of their updated Ubuntu Touch they would need to go to the official Ubuntu Touch repositories, since it's UBports that provided them with the newer versions of Ubuntu Touch, not the store. Is that scenario correct of an interpretation of the GPL license?

Lakotaubp

@Question_Asker https://forums.ubports.com/topic/4158/sell-used-phones-with-ut-installed/22 might help a bit

Question_Asker

@Lakotaubp

The issue with selling used Ubuntu Touch powered devices is that this project is licensed under GPLv3. I am not a lawyer, but I have read the license terms and it seems to me that GPLv3 doesn't even make a distinction between private sellers and businesses (which is the follow-up to the thread that was linked), and requires from all commercial and non-commercial redistributors to provide the access to the source code of the project. Let me quote:

"6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:

a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b.
d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under subsection 6d."

This now raises a question: how to redistribute a UT device commercially and non-commercially, and not get potentially sued either by the customer or even the UBports? Does every redistributor of such a device need to maintain their own mirrors of the versions of Ubuntu Touch which are being sold, or accompany the device with a USB Stick with the full Source Code, or is it just enough to point the customer to the Ubuntu Touch Gitlab repos and call it a day? After all: "Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements". So could a private redistributor or a business rely on Ubuntu Touch maintaining the source code for the next three years, and risking being lawfully punished in case of the opposite?

I am still trying to find a solution for redistributing UT-powered devices without getting sued, since I am not the type to give up easily, but one thing is sure: there is no point in making one's business depend on a project that involves with itself the risk of being rightfully (according to the GPLv3 license) sued. Selling Ubuntu Touch devices, each with a USB Stick with the Source Code on it is quite of a hassle, partly because I have no real experience with Gitlab and it seems that the source code for Ubuntu Touch Core and Ubuntu Touch Apps is quite fragmented, and I have never before needed to download a full source code of any project, not to mention the fact that I have no clue what pieces of the Source Code are contained within the default UT (that is being flashed onto the device through the UBports Installer) and which are not (I've seen some metapackages repo, not being certain whether those are utilised in the UT itself or in the UT's solution for additional package distribution and keeping the software up-to-date), so in my mind there could be a possibility that I would need to spend a lot of time trying to figure out what to even put onto that USB Stick, and I suspect that the source could contain some trademarked assets, and that would be the next legal matter I would need to dive into, as to whether I would even be legally allowed to put those assets onto a USB Stick accompanying the sold UT device. I would certainly appreciate any advice or a constructive reply on this matter.

arubislander

@Question_Asker There is no need to maintain a mirror of the source code if you would be distributing unchanged binaries. In that case simply pointing the customer to the license and the original source code, in whatever form, by link or in writing, is enough to comply with the license.

Only when modifying the source and producing builds based on those modifications, would you be required to link to your own changes.

In any case, the license never requires you to ship the source code with every rrdistribution of your product. It merely requires you to make the source code available. Providing links to the relevant places complies with that requirement.

Question_Asker

@arubislander

Thank you for the advice, it's truly appreciated.