On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Josh Paetzel wrote: > On Thursday 22 February 2007 11:08, Mike Miller wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Josh Paetzel wrote: >>> How about cisco? Well, they don't distribute their software >>> either. They sell devices that run their software. Let's take a >>> look at the GPL itself: >>> >>> Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are >>> not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act >>> of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the >>> Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based >>> on the Program (independent of having been made by running the >>> Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. >>> >>> How about the software that runs (choose your embedded device >>> here) your microwave. Can you get the source code for that, even >>> though it's based on linux? Of course not. The manufacturer of >>> the microwave isn't distributing their software, they are simply >>> selling a device that runs their software. >> >> That is a surprising interpretation. I don't agree with it. By >> selling microwaves, the seller is *distributing* *copies* of the >> software encoded within it. The format is irrelevant -- HDD, >> firmware, floppy, CD, etc. Thus, because selling microwaves >> involved distributing and copying the modified GPL software, and >> not just running the programs, the software on the microwave (or >> other embedded devices) is covered by the GPL. >> >> If you have a source that contradicts my claim, please share it. >> >> Mike > > I don't need a source do I? If you want me to care about what you are writing, yes. > The fact that it's done with inpunity seems to back it up. That isn't true. Maybe that's one reason for having a source. > When you sell a microwave are you distributing software in any sense of > the word? Yes, of course, if the software is encoded in the hardware of the machine, as in your example, then obviously, yes, you are distributing software when you sell a microwave. > You're distributing a piece of hardware that happens to have some > (rather inaccessable) software running in it....if you read the GPL, > especially the part I quoted, you'll notice 'running software' is not > covered by the GPL. I think you are not able to correct yourself. > I think you are the one that needs to provide extrodinary proof, > either with court records of cisco paying out because they are > breaking the GPL, or perhaps providing me with a copy of the software > running on every embedded device running a derivative of linux in > your house (hint, there's more of them then you probably think) Whatever. Mike