On Jan 27, 2008 4:44 PM, Dennis Schulmeister <linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden>
wrote:
> > Can you install a different sw on your router which uses GPLed
> > software? No.
>
> Yes you can. That's what I did with my router. I replaced the Linux
> based firmware with a community developed firmware which is based on
> Linux, too. Although the manufacturer doesn't support it.
No. *Technically* you can. Technically you can hack any hardware available
in order to let it run custom software.
That's a big difference. Would you be able to sell a router for end-users
with no software(except for DIY freaks for which you'd have to provide
complete hw documentation so that they can hack drivers etc)? Would you be
able to sell a computer with no software installed on it? In the case of a
computer you are charging for the computer whereas in the case of a router
you are charging for the *product*.
>
> There has been a lot of hardware where GPLed firmware is a substantial
> part of the product. Those include the aforementioned Internet routers
> but also navigation systems, professional mixing consoles or even
> synthesizers. (e.g. Yamaha's Motif XS).
>
> As long as the manufacturer provides the source of all GPLed software
> there's nothing wrong with that. Neither with GPL 2 nor GPL 3.
That according to GPL is the entire software run inside hardware. That's
because:
1. if you use unmodified GPLed software the reasons are obvious
2. "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or
in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be
licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
this License."
As the GPL doesn't differentiate between source-code level or binary-code
level, it *includes* both cases and so a separate application not capable of
functioning as a standalone application and communicating with another
licensed under the terms of GPL is a *derived* work.
But let's have a look at these statements from the GPL:
"...if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a
fee..."
"... You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy..."
1. Basically "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a
copy..." translates to "You may *only* charge a fee for the physical act of
transferring a copy..." as the GPL doesn't state that you may charge for
the computer program or any other services related to it other than
distribution and providing warranty. Otherwise such statement made by the
GPL would be *invalid*.
2. Let's look at a real world case(the best one i could think about at the
moment), suppose you manufacture shoes that you distribute via FedEx. Who
is charging for distribution? Who is charging for the shoes? As you can
see, charging for distribution of a computer program and charging for
distribution of a computer program are 2 different things.
So in order to charge for the distribution of a computer program licensed
under the terms of GPL, the *sole purpose* would need to be -
*distribution* of that *particular computer program*, nothing else, because
you are *only* allowed to charge for distribution of a computer program. And
in case of a router, you are definitely not distributing a GPLed computer
program and charging for its distribution.
Marek
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Mon Jan 28 00:15:20 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 28 2008 - 00:15:22 EET