Glen is absolutely right here. If everybody becomes a zealot towards people who use GPL software, then nobody will want to get burnt.
Without the commercial application of GPL software, it will eventually become an interesiting academic point. We need to be supporting comercial enteprises who use GPL software, and trying a gentle nudge as the fisrt port of call when something doesn't smell right. Otherwise, GPL supporters will become responsible for the demise of their own. Remeber, we are not 60 minutes, and certainly hope I don't look like Mike Munroe. Cheers Erich Glen Turner wrote: > On Thu, 30 May 2002, Ben Buxton wrote: > >>Cisco seems to be breaching the GPL by using a Linux distribution >>in one of their devices and not mentioning GPL, Linux or source >>anywhere: >> >>http://www.theinquirer.net/29050203.htm >> >>I have access to Cisco downloads and confirmed that this is indeed >>true. Excepts from 'strings' on their (source-less) binary is here: >> >>http://www.cactii.net/~bb/cisco-nam-strings.txt > > > Folks, > > 1) > The GPL is included with the 6500 product literature, see > > http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat6000/cfgnotes/78_10406.htm > > This is a online copy of the documentation shipped with the card. Thus > the claim "not mentioning the GPL anywhere... is indeed true" is difficult > to sustain. There is no license requirement under the GPL to mention > "Linux" (which is a good thing, as the list of attributable products in a > Linux distro is huge). > > > 2) The GPL does *not* require vendors to publish the source code to the > public. It does require vendors to supply source code to purchasers of > product upon request. That purchaser can then make the source code > public, if they choose and at their expense. > > The documentation referred to above states: > > >>The Catalyst 6000 Network Analysis Module contains software covered >>under the GNU Public License (listed below). If you would like to obtain >>the source for the modified GPL code in the Network Analysis Module, >>please send a request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > It seems to me that, in the absence of a report of a purchaser being > denied a copy of the source code upon a request, that there is no story > here and Cisco Systems have been correct in their behaviour[1]. > > I do which people wouldn't be so hasty in accusing people of violating the > GPL -- actually being a purchaser of the product would have been a good > start. If this nonsense continues then companies will simply avoid the PR > issues and mandate that development use BSD licensed software over GPL > licensed software. You can bet that the Cisco product manager for the > 6500 IDS is being questioned closely about their choice of Linux rather > than FreeBSD. They won;t be so eager to use Linux in the future, to the > detriment of us all. > > Regards, > Glen > > [1] With one tiny niggle. A reference to the GPL should also appear in > the position where the license for the Cisco-developed software appears. > Lots of embedded systems manufacturers don't meet this requirement of the > GPL. > -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
