[HTC One Max] DVS_Sokar:
Here is my most recent email I sent to HTC Dev:

Hello,

From information I gathered from the Free Software Foundation (authors of the GPL) about this (as well as some other folks I know that have a better legal background than I), and I compiled the following information for you.

Brett Smith at the Free Software Foundation said, in response to your recent claims that the GPL provides for a delay: "HTC's reading is outrageous -- we honestly thought no respectable company would have the gall to publicly make this argument. A delay of 90-120 days is not reasonable, considering that they must already have the source code.". Clearly, then, the authors of the GPL did not intend for any provision for a delay to be present.

Other legally-trained acquaintances commented that allowing a delay there would easily lead to reductio ad absurdum -- i.e., if an arbitrary delay could be inserted in this contract (which HTC agreed to upon releasing the binary), then that would imply that an arbitrary delay could be inserted in any contract. In most legal cases, it has been shown that if something can be read as either being absurd or not being absurd, the not-absurd reading is the one legally taken.

You mentioned 3(b) of the GPL, which begins that you must "accompany [the binary distribution] with a written offer, valid for at least three years [...] a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code", and it seems that the second clause there -- "valid for at least three years" is the crux of it. Currently, the distribution does come with an offer, but the offer is not valid -- when I asked for the source code, HTC was unable to provide it for me, claiming instead that it would be given to me at an unspecified point in the future. This is not acceptable.

I note also that legal interpretations of a work tend to consider not just the strictly written details, but the intent; when details are in dispute, the overall intent is then referred to. The goal of the GNU GPL is to enhance the freedoms of anyone who receives the software, and to force one who might modify the software and distribute it for their own purposes to publish their changes back to the community. The GNU GPL does not have any provisions for temporarily withholding source for competitive or other reasons; the agreement that one must make when one distributes a binary is that one must also distribute source. Not doing so at the same time would be a violation, not just of the letter, but of the spirit of the contract; the goal of the GNU GPL is to enrich the freedoms of the commons through which software is distributed.

Given these four points -- the FSF's reading, the reductio ad absurdum, the letter of section 3(b) of the GPL, and the spirit of the GPL as a whole -- it is clear that the GPL requires that HTC release the source for the kernel at the same time or earlier than the binary. To that end, I request that you, within 24 hours, provide me with a link to the source for kernel of the HTC One Max 4.3 as well as the 4.4 Kernel upon release of the binary to the public.

It is clear from the reading and intention of the GPL that HTC is currently in violation of the GPL requirements of making the Kernel Source available. I have a cc'd copy of this message prepared for the media outlets as well in anticipation of HTC's denial again of the Source Code. If you are unable to assist me please escalate my message to the appropriate authority capable of making the decision to comply with GPL.

Sincerely and Seriously,