Yet again gmaxwell you have misread what I wrote - but in this case it is VERY specific what I wrote.
Read it again - it is not what you are implying I wrote.
There is no requirement yet for them to give it to me.
I hope you can forgive my misunderstanding, especially since you claimed that they "are breaking the license doing that." and have been demanding they place the source on a public website. I don't know why I would have possibly thought that when you accused someone to be currently in violation of the GPL that you actually believed they were in violation. I'll try to assume less in the future. Read it again - it is not what you are implying I wrote.
There is no requirement yet for them to give it to me.
Thanks for clearing it up cheers!
Again as I explained, if they have working devices and have shipped them, then they must ALREADY have source for those shipped devices.
They MUST NOT respond to the requests for source from those who get those devices with DIFFERENT (edited with code removed) source code to what they used.
Where have I done the following:
Quote
been demanding they place the source on a public website.
... and please do not quote a part of a post of mine where you have edited that quoted text ... you have edited a few of my posts ...