[wellylug] Linux as selling point.

[Bret Comstock Waldow]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:36, David Murray wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 22:22, Bret Comstock Waldow wrote:
> > 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.
>
> "The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48"

<snip>

> Thus, "publish" = "make available".

No.  Have you actually read the license?  The language is plain enough: 
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

Here is the pertinent section:
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.) 

'c' only applies to non commercial distribution, so doesn't apply to selling a 
gizmo.

'a' requires distributing the source along with the distribution of the 
binaries.

'b' says the company *must* provide a written offer to provide the source code 
on request.

None of those fit your suggestion.

Read the license through before you reply this time, and quote the section you 
think supports your interpretation.  Your arguments don't decide, the license 
does, so any valid idea will be in light of actual language in the license.


> > Public distribution outside the organization, not usage, is what is
> > pertinent:
>
> Yes - and in this instance the manufacturer of the gadget is USING the
> software to operate the gadget. The manufacturer is not distributing
> software for people to obtain and to use for their own ends.

The language of the license shows no concern for why the manufacturer is 
distributing the binaries - only that the manufacturer does.

I understand you want this to be interpreted in light of the use of the code, 
but that is not part of the license, and changes neither the language nor the 
intent of the license.

Distribution is what it says, and distribution is what obtains.


> I think that that embedding unmodified GNU/Linux software into gadgets
> and selling those gadgets does not constitute a distribution of
> GNU/Linux.

I understand you think that, or want people to think you think that.  
"Distribute" means distribute - to pass to another.  The gizmo doesn't work 
without the code - providing a working gizmo means a copy of the code has 
gone out with it.

The courts know what 'distribute' means, and they are the deciders.


> I think that one has to ask what is the intent - is the manufacturer
> setting forth to distribute software for people to install and to use,
> or is the manufacturer's intent to make their gadget work by means of
> the embedded software?

You think that - the license makes no such distinction.  You would like it to 
be about that - but in fact it's about what the license says, not what you 
think.

The word is 'distribute'.


> > <snip>
> > If I distribute Free Software, I must respond to requests for the source
> > code of the Free Software.
>
> Yes - but the question is... who is using the software?

No, it isn't.  The license does not ask  this question.  You would like it to, 
but it doesn't.

The license does not address use, but only copying and distribution.


> Surely the 
> manufacturer is using the software to make its gadget work. The
> purchaser of the gadget cannot choose to install or to uninstall any of
> the embedded software.

I could.  There are any number of civilians like myself who could.  Maybe you 
can't, but I definitely can.

I semi-routinely update the embedded code in my laptop.  I am considering 
updating the code in my DVD drive.  I have a program that extracts the code 
from the eprom on my Thinkpad so I can use it to modify the ACPI code I run.

I have updated the code in my MP3 player to fix bugs discovered since it left 
the factory for sale to me.

I have seen articles about pushing individual bits in laptop embedded code to 
fix problems.

A quick search on Google provides pages of practical step by step advice for 
people extracting code from eproms, and advertisements and articles for the 
hardware to do it.  Any hobbyist can equip themselves for this, and many do.

This equipment has been sold for the last quarter-century, and the companies 
are still in business, so someone has been buying it.

People routinely pull out and modify the code embedded in the Linksys WRT54G 
family routers - they run on Linux, and there are several Free code 
alternatives available for them.  Linksys did exactly what we are discussing 
here, offered no way to copy the binaries out of the router, and was obliged 
to provide the source code.  Hobbyists worked out how to read and modify the 
binaries.


Nor does the license make any distinction about this issue.


> I suppose it all boils down to how you look at it.

Not in a court of law it doesn't.  The language is plain.  I'll accept you 
don't want to accept it, but it says what it says, not what you prefer 
instead.

Distributing binaries under the GPL obligates the distributor to provide the 
source as well, either at the time of distribution of the binaries, or when 
requested by anyone that has received a copy of the binaries for a period of 
3 years after distribution  Your desire that this not be so does not change 
it.

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/20050813/c308e60d/attachment.pgp