On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 22:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 04:08:34AM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 21:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 01:57:32AM +0200, Marek Peteraj wrote: > > > > > > > > > Companies using Linux in musical gear besides Lionstracs: Plugzilla (a > > > > > rack that can play VSTs), Muse Receptor (similar concept), Hartman > > > > > Neuron (a synth). Unfortunately the others are based on pretty > > > > > closed design and most don't even tell you that's based on Linux. > > > > > Perhaps their attitude will change > > > > > in future. > > > > > > > > I just quickly checked their sites, and there's indeed absolutely no > > > > mention of using Linux. If they're all indeed using Linux, then it's an > > > > obvious breach of the GPL license. > > > > > > > > Marek > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IIRC, they only have to provide the sources to people who buy the > > > products. > > > > The GPL explicitly states: > > 'to give _any_ third party ... a complete machine-readable copy of the > > corresponding source code ...' > > > > That's one of three options that the GPL gives you in section 3.
Note that only 3 a) and 3 b) apply in our case. > It also > says you can accompany "the Program (or a work based on it, under > Section 2) in object code or executable form" with the source. It seems > to me like they could just put a CD with the source code in the box with > their product and be compliant. <snip> > > Their websites sites aren't "verbatim copies of the Program's source code." The keyword 'General Public' applies to each Section of the GPL , and you have to interpret every statement made by the GPL with respect to 'general public'. The GPL also uses the term ‚any third party'. For example, you may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, in which case you'd normally restrict access to those who pay. In that case you're obliged to put a general public notice that _any_ third party, which intends to pay a fee, will do so for the physical act of transferring a copy of GPLed software, which is being distributed in form of machine readable source-code or as an object or executable form. In case of distributing an object or executable form, you need inform that the corresponding source-code is included or include an offer. You might ask, why? Because there's no way to find out if there's a GPL violation happening when the distributor denies access by charging a fee, which would make such license obsolete. General public means that the general public or any third party should know. In Section 1, the GPL allows to charge a higher fee than the cost of physically performing source distribution, while not allowing to charge more than the cost of physically performing source distribution in section 3 b), which means that if you intend to charge for the physical act of transferring a copy of the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form, you're allowed to charge more aswell, but in that case, if you don't provide the source-code, you can't do additional charges and you have to make an offer and provide it in case any third party is interested. If you do not intend to charge a fee(which is the case of the previously mentioned companies), then 'general public' applies again, no matter whether it's a machine readable source-code, object or executable, meaning that you can't restrict access to your customers and you have to comply with the GPL. Or if you do restrict the access, a general public notice should apply, but that's questionable. If not, it's perfectly fine to ship the source-code while entirely compying with Section 1 (,2) of the GPL license or to ship the object/executable while entirely complying with Sections 1,2,3. But that applies to both a CD shipped with a product or a website download. Marek
