I read the Forbes article referenced at slashdot about the FSF going
after Cisco/Linksys/Broadcom (or something like it), and got a little
confused, had a couple of questions that I couldn't quite figure out
from reading other stuff.
q1. It makes sense to me that software companies that want to integrate
GPL'd code should have to follow the GPL ruling that the derivative
source has to be released with the product. I think it makes it tough
on companies, but if they want the "free lunch" of using "free code"
then they should respect the licensing of that "free code".
What I'm not understanding is the context for this case: the code is
running on Linksys routers, it's not like they're releasing a software
product. It's an integrated package, the software in question wouldn't
be run by a user. Ultimately, I don't understand it, but is that the
same thing as somebody writing a software program meant for distribution
and violating the GPL?
q2. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv, so I could be completely
wrong, but with regards to this kind of stuff, if you have some sort of
legal, uh, interest in something, sorry, I don't know how to say it, but
if someone violates your interest in that something, and you knowingly
allow them to do it, it kind of seems that it somehow nulls or damages
your case for maintaining that interest or ownership of something.
So am I right in thinking that if a group (such as Cisco/Linksys in this
case) violates the GPL, it's known, and nobody does anything about it,
it sort of invalidates the GPL, at least maybe for that particular
thing, and maybe just overall? And so the FSF pretty much has to go
after anybody they know who violates the GPL, in order to maintain it's
validity?
Sorry, I get confused easy, a pointer to a website explaining this in
human speech (ie, not legalese) would be great.
Links to the docs/articles I was reading are:
http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL
