On Jan 31, 2008 12:43 AM, Paul Davis <paul@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 23:18 +0000, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 00:14 +0100, Marek wrote:
> >
> > > > > My product is a router which uses your software in an unmodified form.
> > > > > It pulls firmware directly from net. I don't offer anything for
> > > > > download. Note, this would *not* be a distribution of your software,
> > > > > this would be selling of my router.
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you solve this issue?
> > > >
> > > > What issue? You're using GPLed software in a manner permitted by the
> > > > licence. Where's the issue?
> > >
> > > Go ahead. Elaborate.
> >
> > Wait, what? Elaborate what? You're the one that came up with a
> > non-issue, and now you want me to explain why it is an issue?
>
> I'll answer instead.
>
> There are two scenarios:
>
> 1) said router downloads code that is unmodified from the software
> i have licensed under the GPL
> 2) said router downloads code that is modified
>
> Condition (1) : the only gray area is whether distribution has occured.
> GPLv3 tries to clarify that, but not very well. Either way, it doesn't
> matter because the software has not been modified, and is thus freely
> available for the user.
No distribution of GPL software has occured since all you get is a
router. In the specific case i mentioned you don't touch the software
at all, you don't update.
You don't get to see the software.
In case of Linksys, they are providing object and corresponding source
code for their routers on their *website*.
Meaning, they distribute the object code that corresponds to the
object code they use in their hardware product.
They distribute by "offering access from a designated place", not by
selling hardware.
So for example, in the case of the german court judgement, the fact
that they are manufacturing hardware is of no relevance to the fact
they are distributing GPLed object code and corresponding source code.
>
> Condition (2) : again, the gray area is whether distribution has
> occured. again, GPLv3 tries to clarify that. it would take a court to
> decide whether it had in a specific case. So - what if it *is*
> distribution? Then either the router manufacturer has to make the source
> available; if they don't, we're just back to the same old story of
> companies violating the GPL. If they do, no problem.
>
> If it *isn't* distribution in the eyes of the law, then there is a
> loophole, though its one that GPLv3 attempts to rectify with its use of
> the term "convey". I suspect that if the s/w were GPLv3 licensed, no
> court would dispute that the router manufacturer is "conveying" the
> software to the user.
>
In GPLv3, to "convey" a work means any kind of propagation that
enables other parties to make or receive copies. You don't "receive a
copy *in* the router".
You just get the router. In case you have to manually update the
router software, you receive an object code that corresponds to the
object code the manufacturer used in the router, either "fixed on a
durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange", or
the manufacturer "offers access from a designated place".
This is how the requirement to "enable other parties to make or
receive copies" is fullfiled, if the software represents a substantial
part of the User product.
On the other hand you may aswell convey a Linux distribution *in* a
laptop you're (re)selling, since you received a copy of the Linux
distribution installed on the laptop you have purchased. You are free
to choose another software product if you wish so.
Marek
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Fri Feb 1 04:15:01 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 01 2008 - 04:15:02 EET