[wellylug] Linux as selling point.

[David Antliff]

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005, David Murray wrote:
> 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?

It's not about technicalities. It all comes back to the spirit of the GPL 
and hence this question:

"Are they using or deriving from someone elses work and in turn providing 
the means for any others to improve or extend their efforts as the 
original author requires as a condition of use or derivation?"

I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. A requirement for using 
GPL software is that you do not 'break the chain'. If you don't want to 
continue the chain, then you must not use (in the development sense) or 
derive from the software.

It's about professional courtesy really. That is why the GPL license is 
not the same as the Public Domain.

-- 
David.