> 1. usage of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL in a hardware > product, whether modified or not, is not a distribution of a computer > program licensed under the terms of GPL, and is thus prohibited by GPL.
I don't follow you there. Why the exception you mention (selling computers with Linux preinstalled) is indeed a exception and not the rule? As I see it, where it really matters, LS is Open Source and Free Software, whatever the FSF, the OSI or anyone else says. No matter how it is worded, the only freedom the LS authors are trying to keep from you is the one to make a direct commercial profit of their hard work without giving back to the community, with seems to me more than fair enough and quite worthy of openishness and freeishness. You have the sources, you can improve them, you can fork the project provided you keep a compatible license... It intends to encourage the sharing of any potential improvement of the sw more strongly than the GPL. What's not free or open there? The only absolutely free license is PD, every other one has some restriction or another. This interpretation is clear from their FAQ and I can't fathom what can be seen as misleading in it. It is clearly not GPL, but GPL-based. So what? If GPL was The-Only-Rightful-Way there wouldn't be any other gazillion of licenses more or less based on it. Just call it the LS license. However, I also don't think the (in)famous GPL exception is strictly necessary, effective or useful. I will explain: Let's say two imaginary companies, Amaha and Boland, decide to market an equivalent model of hw sampler. After a market study they reach the conclusion that to make a good enough business they must sell the hw at 2000 GP (RPG gamers know what kind currency GP is :-) If they also develop a custom controller software they must add 1000 GP to the retail price. Amaha develops both hw and sw and sells its sampler at 3000 GP. Boland uses LS but tries to squeeze the market value and make an unfair extra benefit out if it and sells its product at 2900 GP. This is plain stealing, and it is what the LS guys try to prevent. I think they are violating the plain GPL here, since they are not charging 'reasonable' costs for distributing a GPLd software, but it will be hard and costly to prove it in court. They can always make up the numbers or claim that 900 GP is a rightful extra profit for the hw if the market allows it. I don't know how effective the additional exception can prove in this situation, but it is probably better than nothing. However, it will work only once. If Boland sampler is successful enough how long will it take to Amaha to market their own LS-based version and sell it at little more than 2000 GP? In this later case, my interpretation is that they are in the same situation as a PC retailer selling Linux computers, and thus are not making an unfair profit, so this should not bother LS authors since Amaha is giving back to the community by manufacturing and selling cheaper products and not directly benefiting from their work. xjadeo is a GPL sw Robin Gareus and I developed and now is included, together with some more worthy software (linux kernel, ardour...) in a commercial audio console. I want to believe that the market itself it is protecting the community of being ripped off, because justice is unfortunately different than legality and we have no means to prevent it. I think this is a discussion valid for the LAD list, since we all are concerned about licensing our software and the use other people make of it. Luis _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
