[wellylug] Linux as selling point.

[Bret Comstock Waldow]

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:43, David Antliff wrote:
> 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.

Hmm.  I'd say it's about ownership as well.  The person that writes the code 
has automatic ownership, expressed as the right to decide who can make 
copies.  Copy-right.

If I write something, I wrote it, and others can't claim to have written it.  
I can decide if and how others may copy it for their use, because it is in 
fact my work.

If I let others use it, I can specify terms - that's a license.  GPL code is 
owned.  In some cases the original author has transferred the copy-right to 
someone else - maybe an organization.   But the code is still owned.  That's 
why it's not the same as Public Domain.

And the owner says you (the Royal "you") can use it if you agree to release 
any modifications.  Otherwise, write your own and don't sponge off my work.

It's a direct, legal contract, enforceable under our law, because our society 
says that's part of acting in this society.  The code is owned, our society 
says the owner gets to decide how it's used, and these owners have decided on 
the GPL license.

Anyone can avoid the terms of the GPL license by not using that code.

But if someone does use it, they must follow the license terms, or it's theft. 
And yes, theft is the correct word.  It's not their code, and it's not public 
domain.

So, you (the Royal "you") want to make money off GPL code, sure - you 
contribute your changes to the body of Free Software, and you can keep the 
money.  But you don't keep the code.  If you want to keep the code, write 
your own.

There's nothing floaty or uncertain about it.  It's the same intellectual 
property as anything Microsoft or IBM or Oracle writes - the owner/author 
issued it under a license - don't build on the code unless you agree to the 
license and see to it that you (the Royal "you") carry out it's terms.

That's why it's not public domain.

And it is courteous to be honest.  I certainly agree with that.  Theft, on the 
other hand, is rude.

Cheers,
Bret
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.wellylug.org.nz/pipermail/wellylug/attachments/20050809/55c8794b/attachment.pgp