Hi,
SplashTop is an extension of BIOS that runs on the Linux kernel and has been distributed by ASUS on certain high-end motherboards and laptops since October, 2007. In May 2008, ASUS announced that it will ship SplashTop on *ALL* its motherboards. The problem is that ever since SplashTop's inception ASUS has been infringing on the copyright of Linux kernel contributors.
SplashTop's so-called source code (http://www.splashtop.com/download3.php?token=1bfb156d0cd5fef5df4a43ad2b4...) contains a few patches to the Linux kernel but not the whole, compilable modified kernel source code as the GPL requires. This clearly constitutes a copyright violation.
I haven't bought any of the motherboards or laptops containing SplashTop, but ASUS may have left out the obligatory notice on boxes and/or manuals informing the recipients that the product contains GPL code and where that source code can be obtained. If they indeed left out the notice, that constitutes another violation of the GPL and consequently of copyright law.
Another product that likely violates the GPL is Hyperspace, which is marketed by the infamous proprietary PC BIOS maker Phoenix. Even though Hyperspace clearly runs Linux and has been reported to do so in the press, Phoenix doesn't even mention the word Linux or the GPL on its website (http://www.phoenix.com/en/Products/Browse+by+Products/Phoenix+HyperSpace...), and certainly doesn't provide any source code. I am not sure what motherboards Hyperspace is distributed on, but I would expect that they also fail to mention Linux, the GPL and the availability of source code. This again violates the GPL and the copyrights of Linux kernel contributors like yourselves.
I urge you to uphold your copyrights and protect the rights of Free Software users by making unscrupulous companies like ASUS and Phoenix respect the conditions set out by the GPL and give back their improvements in the form of source code. And if they refuse, sue them in court! Some of the improvements to Linux that they try ...
[ message continues ]

Out of curiosity, have you tried asking them nicely?  ASUS seems to be pretty

responsive when oversights like this are pointed out to them.  Of course, if you

start with a lawsuit threat you're inclined to hit the slow path (legal) rather

than the fast path (support/community relations).  I have no idea how responsive

Phoenix is to issues like this, but a friendly request goes over much better

than a shot across the bow.
-- Chris

--

Hi,
I haven't heard anything from ASUS, but an employee from DeviceVM, the company that develops SplashTop, responded here: http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20080521/f74...
There are several unresolved issues: first of all, it is ASUS and not DeviceVM that is distributing the binary to customers who buy motherboards and laptops. It is therefore ASUS' obligation to provide the the "complete machine-readable" source code to those customers. I've included the relevant section of the GPLv2 below. You'll notice that the GPLv2 sets out three possible ways to provide source code, detailed in sections 3a, 3b and 3c. ASUS _cannot_ hide behind section 3c by simply pointing customers to SplashTop/DeviceVM's website because neither ASUS nor DeviceVM are noncommercial, and in fact, they are _selling_ motherboards and laptops containing GPLv2 software. 
------------------------

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,

under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of

Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable

    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections

    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software

    interchange; or,
    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three

    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your

    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete

    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be

    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium

    customarily used for software interchange; or,
    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer

    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is

    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you

    received the ...
[ message continues ]

Thst isn't a simple question and rather depends upon the contractual

arrangements don't you think ? If I offer to supply it by CD your

software will be delivered by the postal service, from whom you did not

buy the product.
A company might have liability for the failure of its agents to perform
Let me propose a different theory: ASUS thought a smaller 12MB download
It's a mini virtual machine using the cpu extensions. It really shouldn't

need any deeply magical kernel patches except maybe interfaces to

virtualised drivers.
I really don't see a big problem providing ASUS are including the written

offer in the manual somewhere or have an agreement with devicevm to act

as their GPL fulfilment - and DeviceVM do so.
What we *really* need to happen is to get DeviceVM/Phoenix merging their

work into the base kernel tree nicely and cleanly.
Alan

--

Yet it is DeviceVM that distributes it to ASUS, so the GPL obligations

attach thereto.

--