On Thursday 22 February 2007 12:33, Mike Miller wrote: > 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 > You can 'whatever' to your heart's content, but the real-world facts are this: linux is extremely popular with the embedded hardware community, and for the most part source code for embedded devices running linux is not available to the end-users. I'm sure this violation of the 'spirit of the GPL' is really frustrating, but I'm talking about the way things are, not the way you'd like them to be. (and yes, in case you haven't guessed, I'm particularly fond of the BSDL) I've found some cases of companies releasing the source to their proprietary GPL'd software, ala linksys. I've also found some examples of companies abandoning GPL'd software for other solutions, but I've yet to find an example of someone losing a 'cease and desist' or 'pay the author damages' court case, which leads me to believe companies have rolled either because it's cheaper to use something else than fight it out in court (regardless of whether they think they can win) or they don't want the linux fanboys to stop buying their gear. I'm not at all suggesting that if I roll JoshLinux and use GPL'd software and make my binaries which are runnable on commodity hardware available for download off my website for a fee that I don't have to distribute my source code to be in compliance with the GPL. But I disagree strongly with the suggestion that a microwave is a piece of software, and it seems that the industry is of the same opinion. I think you're a tad hung up on difference between the way things should be and the way they are. Just out of curiosity, how many embedded hardware guys do you know that use linux on their hardware? Are you at all familiar with the industry, how popular and pevasive linux is in it? I take the stance that I don't have to provide web-links because I think we're all too familiar of cases of companies modifing GPL software, using it in their proprietary devices, selling it, not distributing the source code, and nothing happening to them (ala cisco) I could provide example after example of this if I wanted to, but I don't feel it's my responsibility to spoon-feed you information on how the real-world works. You have google, and provided you're any good at using it you can find out the truth for yourself. Your general attitude, with comments like "whatever" and "I think you are not able to correct yourself." reeks of fan-boyism, immaturity, or most likely, both. Take a look around you at how the world is.....unfortunately it doesn't line up wtih how you'd like it to be. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel