[wellylug] Linux as selling point.

[Bret Comstock Waldow]

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:34, David Murray wrote:

> Yes - and are not those terms that you can use the source code in any
> way you like - freely. But *if* you modify that source code then you
> have to publish the source code to those changes.

Not publish, but make available to anyone that *requests* it, with some 
accommodation for the cost of distributing it.


> But if you do NOT modify the source code, then you are FREE to do what
> you like with it - and if that means embedding binaries made from that
> source code within a gadget then so beit

This is my understanding.  I might be right about that.  8-)


> - especially if those binaries 
> are un-extractable without breaking said gadget,

I don't understand any such issue to have any relevance.  I haven't read any 
basis for this exception.  In the absence of a quote from the GPL people, I 
don't see that this is pertinent.


> and provided that the 
> source code is un-modified from the original.

> I could be wrong, however, and if there is a clause in the GPL which
> prohibits the usage of binaries produced from unmodified source code by
> hardware manufacturers, then please feel free to quote it.

Public distribution outside the organization, not usage, is what is pertinent:

3.  You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under 
Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 
and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source 
code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on 
a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, 

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to 
give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically 
performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the 
corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 
and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, 

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to 
distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for 
noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object 
code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b 
above.) 

Did you note the terms "object code" and "executable form" in the above?  And 
that it doesn't refer to use, but to copying and distribution?  Note that 
option 'c' only applies for noncommercial distribution.

Use seems ok.  Changing the license isn't.  Not providing access to the source 
isn't.  This clause appears to me to say that if I distribute the compiled 
binaries to the public I must provide the source for those binaries according 
to the other terms of the license, even if I'm not the copyright holder, and 
even if I did not modify the binaries.

If I distribute Free Software, I must respond to requests for the source code 
of the Free Software.

Cheers,
Bret

-- 
Given the degree to which Americans distrust politicians, it boggles the mind 
that religious leaders would consign themselves to that particular circle of 
hell.
- Alan Wolfe
-------------- 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/ef64e323/attachment.pgp