[wellylug] Linux as selling point.

[Bret Comstock Waldow]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:10, David Murray wrote:

> That's right - the GPL is about governing the distribution of software.
> I'm not talking about distributing software - I'm talking about a
> manufacturer using software in their gadgets.

If it goes from the manufacturer to a new owner, it has been distributed.  You 
can say it hasn't, but you are not correct.  Saying it has not been 
distributed simply shows your misunderstanding of the meaning of the word.  
You would like to hold it to narrow definition that appears to involve some 
idea of 'use', but that isn't in fact a limit on the meaning of the term 
'distribute', it's just your limit, and has no wider application.


> And if you prevent others from looking at that software in your gadget,

You can assert this, but it is not so.  The license does not make exceptions 
according to whether you have attempted to prevent others from looking at the 
software - so whether they can or not makes no difference.  This restriction 
only comes from your assertion, and appears nowhere in the text of the 
license.  It is only your fabrication.

If a copy of the binary leaves the manufacturer and goes to someone else, it 
has been distributed, and the terms of the GPL apply.  Otherwise, the 
manufacturer has no license at all to include the software with the gizmo - 
only the terms of the GPL license give them the authority to copy the 
binaries for inclusion in the device.

You can continue to assert this, but you are not correct.  The words in the 
license, not your words, govern the license.  To send copies of the binaries 
to customers invokes the distribution clauses, and the license only remains 
valid if the manufacturer fulfills the requirement to provide the source with 
the binary, or responds to subsequent requests for the source code.

Otherwise the manufacturer exposes themself to potential loss of all profits, 
plus punitive damages, for ignoring the copyright laws of the society they 
are operating in.

Quote the sentences in the license that make an exception depending on whether 
the receiver can copy the binary form of the program off the device.  You 
won't, because you cant.


> then surely it can hardly be said that you're providing a distribution
> of that software.

The license does not say anything about a "distribution" of that software.  
Get this distinction very clear in your head.

It is common to refer to the packaged files of a Linux distribution as a 
"distribution" but this is not what anyone (save possibly you) are speaking 
of here.  Specifically, it is not what the license is speaking of, so it has 
no bearing at all on the issue.

The license refers to the act of distributing the binary form of a GPL 
program.  That means giving a copy to someone else.  There is no exception 
for the medium that contains the binary.  You would like to pretend this has 
some application, but the license does not so state, so aspects of the medium 
do not exclude the obligation.

Quote the sentences in the license that make a distinction based on the medium 
the binary form of the program is contained within.  You won't, because you 
can't, as the license makes no such distinction.

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/20050813/8b9613db/attachment.pgp