[wellylug] Linux as selling point.

[David Murray]

On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 23:04, Jethro Carr wrote:
> > I'm not convinced that distributing a gadget that just happens to use a
> > modification of a GPL'd software product to make that gadget work also
> > constitutes a non-internal distribution of a binary version of a
> > software product - especially if the software cannot be copied from the
> > gadget.
> 
> I see where you are coming from, but this is classified as a violation,
> as the finished product (which includes the Linux binaries) is being
> distributed outside of the company, which is non-internal distribution.
> 
> It's like the cases where companies power routers with Linux, and don't
> include the source. Exact same thing.
> 
> If the product was only used by their employees, it would not be a
> violation.

I can understand it being a violation if the binaries were able to be
taken off the gadget and used elsewhere. But if the binaries are an
internal part of the gadget that is not accessible by the owner of the
gadget (much like certain ROM in microwaves are inaccessible by the
owners of said microwaves, then how does that constitute publishing a
binary distribution of Linux for people to use?

I mean, to my thinking it would be different if they were attempting to
sell a modified distro of Linux. But they're selling a gadget that just
happens to be driven by Linux.


Regards, and hope to speak with you tonight...


David Murray