I disagree. Let's say the GPL code in question is the Linux kernel, just so we have something more definite to talk about. When the OEM sells Kogan a TV containing a binary Linux kernel, and a CD-ROM containing the source to said Linux kernel, Kogan is receiving two copies (the one in the TV and the one on the CD-ROM) of one copyrighted work (the Linux kernel). Kogan is not altering either copy. It's irrelevant from a copyright view that Kogan happened to receive the two copies in the same shipment from the OEM, or that one copy is a source code CD-ROM and one is binary firmware.
It's not really much different than if I buy in one order from Amazon a copy of the first Harry Potter book in English, and a copy of the Spanish edition of the first Harry Potter book. If I then sell the Spanish edition to a used bookstore and keep the English edition, I don't have to get J.K. Rowling's permission. The combination of the English and Spanish editions did not become one work just because they both came in the same box from Amazon--and it wouldn't even if Amazon was actually offering such bundles as a package deal (say, aimed at readers who are learning Spanish so they can read them in parallel to help learn).
Even if a case could be made that the bundle of these two copies counts as a separate work, it would just be a collective work or a compilation work, and the copyright in the collection or compilation would belong to the party that made the collection or compilation--and that would be the OEM.
Totally disagree. the complete work is the source code and binary together. It's irrelevant that the copyrighted work happens to be made out of two CD-ROM's. A movie on two DVD's are not two movies, its the same movie, the same copy of the copyrighted work.
But if you are not happy with that answer, lets look what an US judge said about first-sale doctrine and software licenses:
("Generally, if the copyright owner makes it clear that
she or he is granting only a license to the copy of
software and imposes significant restrictions on the
purchaser's ability to redistribute or transfer that
copy, the purchaser is considered a licensee, not an
owner, of the software.").
In EU law, there is simply no sale for first-sale doctrine to trigger. The GPL obligations are simply not compatible with what defines a sale transaction.
It's not really much different than if I buy in one order from Amazon a copy of the first Harry Potter book in English, and a copy of the Spanish edition of the first Harry Potter book. If I then sell the Spanish edition to a used bookstore and keep the English edition, I don't have to get J.K. Rowling's permission. The combination of the English and Spanish editions did not become one work just because they both came in the same box from Amazon--and it wouldn't even if Amazon was actually offering such bundles as a package deal (say, aimed at readers who are learning Spanish so they can read them in parallel to help learn).
Even if a case could be made that the bundle of these two copies counts as a separate work, it would just be a collective work or a compilation work, and the copyright in the collection or compilation would belong to the party that made the collection or compilation--and that would be the OEM.