gpl license definition of distributing

I have a question on the distubuting part og GPL. GPL claims some demand when you distribute the SW, but when is it distribution i ask? The example in the FAQ on FSF's site states that if I have an webserver that is run by GPL software the users of my website and therefore the users of this GPL software, does not have a claim for the source as the program it not distributet.

But what about embedded SW? example: I put some GPL software in a piece of hardware (like a washing machine). This hardware is protected so the user won't have access to the software only the functionality. I sell this hardware. Now have i distributet the software? as the user does not have access to the software!

You could claim that as I am selling the hardware I sell and thereby distribute the SW. But what if I only rentet out the HW. Would that not be like people using my website for a fee?

And if realy this is a distributiuon and i have to provide source. I could put the source into my hardware, becuase I have now delivered the source on the same medium as the executebels. But my customor have no access to either.

--
Martin Hansen
Reply to
Martin Hansen
Loading thread data ...

Yes.

I don't know what "access" has to do with it. You've shipped a binary copy of a GPL program to somebody else. They are therefore entitled to source. I don't think the GPL contains any exclusions tothe source provision based on the type of medium used to distribute the binary.

That's certainly the way I see it.

How the hardware is paid for doesn't matter. If you send hardware containing the program's binary to somebody else, then you've distributed the software.

No. The people who use your website to not get copies of the binary for the web server.

Correct.

I don't think that satisfies the GPL. It must be in a machine readable format in a form useful for somebody who wants to make changes to it and build a new binary.

Have you _read_ the GPL?

formatting link

Your questions are all answered there.

You have to provide the source code in a usable, ma

If you ship binaries of GPL programs in your device, you've got to provide source code. Period.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I'm thinking about
                                  at               DIGITAL READ-OUT systems
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Grant Edwards

The people using my website does not own the server, they pay to use it. The people using my washing machine does not own the machine, they pay to use it.

I do not not give users of my website access to copies of the software they just use it. I do not give users of my washing machine access to copies of the software thaey are just using it.

section 3.a says Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;

Now "a medium customarily used for software interchange" could might as well be the eprom on my HW, as this the way i commonly ship my SW.

Yes, of course

No.

No, it says if i distribute copies. But it does not define distribution.

If you take a look at

formatting link
you will se that making copies an distributing is not the same thing. So therefore i would like a precise definition of distributing.

--
Martin Hansen
Reply to
Martin Hansen

Then you ought to consult an IP lawyer familiar with open source software. Do consider that people are not going to appreciate you trying to get around the spirit of the GPL. They licensed their work that way for a reason.

- Dave

Reply to
David N. Welton

I am going to consult a lawyer with knodledge of sw licencing. But i feel that taking this discusion in public first will prepare me for that meting.

I know that it might be seen that way, but let me state here that I do like the GPL. Would like to se a world that was pure GPL. But to know how well my own GPL software is protected i have to challenge it in public i.e. usenet. If we do not take a critical look at GPL yourselfs someone whith an evil mind will and then we stand defenseless.

I have seens exampels of embedded network devices based on Linux, whith no written offer to get the source.

--
Martin Hansen
Reply to
Martin Hansen

There are also examples of companies getting in trouble over this (look on google for the netfilter team going after a couple of companies). It depends on the copyright holder and how willing/able they are to pursue offending parties.

Reply to
David N. Welton

AFAIK:

GPL has nothing to do with payment or the way of distribution. If you hand over a GPLed binary in any form, the recipient can ask you to give you the source for no additional fee. You don't need to provide it publicly nor provide it unless asked for, but you can't rule out being asked . Moreover the recipient can use and redistribute the GPLed software he got (binary and source) freely under the terms of the GPL.

But the software you write yourself and that works in the device is not necessarily GPLed. If it's simple user land programs "not statically linked to GPLed software", they are not "infected" by the GPL the OS comes with.

So IMHO in if all your own software is not GPLed user land programs, it should be enough to send your customers to the standard kernel and GNU source code locations for the GPLed part of the devices software.

-Michael

Reply to
Michael Schnell

Huh? Where do you get this "access" bit from? The GPL doesn't say anything about "access" it talks about distributing copies of the binary/executable

EPROM is not, however a medium customarily used for distribution of source code. If you want to put sources in EPROM and provide the user a way to get them out (e.g. ftp, or http server, or serial port via x-modem), you could argue that you're giving the user the source code. Simply putting them in ROM and not telling the customer they're there wouldn't qualify.

You should also read the FAQ if you want to know the FSF's interpretation of the GPL:

I want to distribute binaries without accompanying sources. Can I provide source code by FTP instead of by mail order? You're supposed to provide the source code by mail-order on a physical medium, if someone orders it. You are welcome to offer people a way to copy the corresponding source code by FTP, in addition to the mail-order option, but FTP access to the source is not sufficient to satisfy section 3 of the GPL.

When a user orders the source, you have to make sure to get the source to that user. If a particular user can conveniently get the source from you by anonymous FTP, fine--that does the job. But not every user can do such a download. The rest of the users are just as entitled to get the source code from you, which means you must be prepared to send it to them by post.

If the FTP access is convenient enough, perhaps no one will choose to mail-order a copy. If so, you will never have to ship one. But you cannot assume that.

Of course, it's easiest to just send the source with the binary in the first place.

Giving the copy to somebody else.

If you want the FSF's opinion, you should as them.

Why are you trying to weasle out of the GPL? Apparently you want to put somebody elses software in your product. Not only aren't you payint the owner of the software, you seem to be trying to figure out ways around the license under which they are permitting you to distribute that software.

Suck it up and do the right thing.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Now my EMOTIONAL
                                  at               RESOURCES are heavily
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Grant Edwards

You are allowed to charge a "handling" fee for the hassle of burning a CD and mailing it to him:

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Will this
                                  at               never-ending series of
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Grant Edwards

Unless you are going to claim that people prefer to edit source code while it's in eprom on your HW, distributing the sources in eprom on your HW does not meet the terms of the GPL.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I just bought
                                  at               FLATBUSH from MICKEY
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Grant Edwards

Or maybe it is my source that is on someone elses device, and I want to know if they can take my source!!

--
Martin Hansen
Reply to
Martin Hansen

I am trying to find the point where renting access to my washing machine and my website differs. So the user would be entitelt to the source.

I kow what the intention of the license is "making the source free", but can i bee sure that my source is free if i put it under GPL. So far I have not seen answer that provides me with the argument that convinces me. I have mostly seen arguments saying "we don't want to hear this, if you do this we don't like you". Well if someone takes my code and put it in a aparatus, and earn money. I don't think that he/she will care if I like them or not.

Says who?

Well in the example below they are giving the copy to someone but they are not distributing.

I do.

--
Martin Hansen
Reply to
Martin Hansen

Then you could, with the same argument, claim that a tape does not meet the terms. I don't think anyone edit sources while it is on tape.

--
Martin Hansen
Reply to
Martin Hansen

I don't think "access" has anything to do with it. If you don't give somebody a copy of the executable, you don't have to give them the source. It doesn't matter if you give them "access" to a machine that's running the program.

I think that question is more of a "work for hire" question. If you develop changes under contract to a client, those changes belong to the client, so when you give them to the client you're not distributing anything, you're just turning them over to their owner.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  By MEER biz doo
                                  at               SCHOIN...
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Grant Edwards

After re-reading that section I belive I misinterpreded "form" as implying a particular medium. I think that the "form" refers to something like "unencrypted, unobsfucated ASCII source files" -- regardless of medium.

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Are the STEWED PRUNES
                                  at               still in the HAIR DRYER?
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Grant Edwards

But do I in legal sense give the user of the washing machine a copy? If the definition is dependend on physical location of the HW, this has other implications. I.e. lets take the webserver example, i make some adjustments to a piece of GPL code to run my webserver. Now as stated by Stallmann this does not give users the right to my code. But if as you imply here the physical location is important. then placing my server at my nigbours house becuase of his big internet connection would give him right to the source, if he uses my webpage, but not my other neighbours.

That is what i mean, if somone rents the machine the changes does not belong to them either.

And last let me state once more that I do like the GPL. But need to take a critical look at it to know its weakneses, or they will probaly hit me unprepared.

--
Martin Hansen.
Reply to
Martin Hansen

I think that you are getting far too hung up on using obtuse examples regarding the meaning of the word 'distributing'

Very simple: If you write custom code (ie. some PHP/Perl/Python script) that acts in conjuction with a GPL product (ie. Apache/Linux et al). You are free to choose the license to release that code under.

Just because your code depends on the functionality of another GPL component, you do not need to distribute your code (unless its statically linked etc...)

Only if you modify Apache / Linux kernel would you have to follow the GPL requirements.

Your own custom code can be released under any license you wish...

Its really not that complicated, although you seem determined to make it so ;)

Reply to
Barry S

Code from the Apache Software Foundation is not licensed under the GPL, but under a more liberal license of our own:

formatting link

Ciao, Dave

Reply to
David N. Welton

With the really dramatic rise of Linux in embedded applications for the military, I recently had a morbid thought: does being bombed with a weapon running Linux count as "distribution"? If I recover smoking chunks of a missile that just destroyed my home, can I contact the manufacturer and request source to the GPLed software which guided the weapon?

;-)

Reply to
Nick Popoff

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.