<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 27, 2008 4:44 PM, Dennis Schulmeister <<a href="mailto:linux-audio-dev@windows3.de">linux-audio-dev@windows3.de</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">> Can you install a different sw on your router which uses GPLed<br>> software? No.<br><br></div>Yes you can. That's what I did with my router. I replaced the Linux<br>based firmware with a community developed firmware which is based on<br>
Linux, too. Although the manufacturer doesn't support it.</blockquote><div><br><br>No. *Technically* you can. Technically you can hack any hardware available in order to let it run custom software.<br>That's a big difference. Would you be able to sell a router for end-users with no software(except for DIY freaks for which you'd have to provide complete hw documentation so that they can hack drivers etc)? Would you be able to sell a computer with no software installed on it? In the case of a computer you are charging for the computer whereas in the case of a router you are charging for the *product*.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>There has been a lot of hardware where GPLed firmware is a substantial<br>
part of the product. Those include the aforementioned Internet routers<br>but also navigation systems, professional mixing consoles or even<br>synthesizers. (e.g. Yamaha's Motif XS).<br><br>As long as the manufacturer provides the source of all GPLed software<br>
there's nothing wrong with that. Neither with GPL 2 nor GPL 3.</blockquote><div><br>That according to GPL is the entire software run inside hardware. That's because:<br>1. if you use unmodified GPLed software the reasons are obvious<br>
2. "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License."<br>As the GPL doesn't differentiate between source-code level or binary-code level, it *includes* both cases and so a separate application not capable of functioning as a standalone application and communicating with another licensed under the terms of GPL is a *derived* work.<br>
<br>But let's have a look at these statements from the GPL:<br>"...if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee..."<br>"... You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy..."<br>
<br>1. Basically "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy..." translates to "You may *only* charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy..." as the GPL doesn't state that you may charge for the computer program or any other services related to it other than distribution and providing warranty. Otherwise such statement made by the GPL would be *invalid*.<br>
<br><br>2. Let's look at a real world case(the best one i could think about at the moment), suppose you manufacture shoes that you distribute via FedEx. Who is charging for distribution? Who is charging for the shoes? As you can see, charging for distribution of a computer program and charging for distribution of a computer program are 2 different things.<br>
<br><br>So in order to charge for the distribution of a computer program licensed under the terms of GPL, the *sole purpose* would need to be - *distribution* of that *particular computer program*, nothing else, because you are *only* allowed to charge for distribution of a computer program. And in case of a router, you are definitely not distributing a GPLed computer program and charging for its distribution. <br>
<br></div>Marek<br><div><br><br><br></div></div><br>