[Galaxy S II Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting] naguz:
Just a quick (or not, sorry) note about GPL. I doubt anyone cares very much aboutyou not providing sources for beta kernels, as long as you provide them for releases.

However, your statement that the GPLv2 allows you to choose not to release the source code for beta kernels ae wrong. It'd be nice if ou would remove that false claim, so no-one reads it and thinks "hey, it's legal". ;)

If you want to know WHY and WHAT with the statement is wrong, continue along:

There are two main issues withy your statement.

1: You seem to think this is just a question about time. It is not.

The fact is, you release betas which differ from the finished product. So the main problem - and the clearest (and indisputable) breach of GPLv2 (and hence legality) - is that you never actually release source code for the betas you distribute, or offer to do so. Instead you do the exact opposite, you say outright that you won't do it. This is not alleviated in any way by releasing the source for a different binary - the finished kernel - later on.

2: You think it is "OK" to wait a bit. Surely - everyone does it! But it is legal?

The GPLv2 demands that you accompany the compiled software with:

"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, [...]"

Note accompany. Which means, clearly, that the offer to provide source code must be there at the time of distribution - i not, it doesn't accompany it. 1 is a much clearer violation though. Or to put it another way: You need permission from al the copyrightholders or another paragraph in the GPLv2 to wait. Where is this magical paragraph?

So if you'd remove the false claim in the OP, that would be great. :)

If I were you, I'd just zip up your source dir and post it on mediafire . Causes you no added hassle, and saves you from the possible (but albeit unlikely) ambulance chaser.

The problem is, by violating the license of GPLv2 software, you loose all rights to distribute the software under the GPLv2 from thereon. See pharagraph 4: "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."

This means, tat if you ONCE distribute the kernel in breach of GPLv2, as you do, ALL subsequent releases of the kernel and it's components by you are illegal and a copyright violation - meaning you are open for lawsiut from any one of the numerous copyrightholders to different modules and parts of the kernel. This is not really a realistic scenario though (as already mentioned) Unless you are ever planning on making a profit of developing, or get rich in an other way.