27 Jan
2008
27 Jan
'08
5:56 p.m.
On Jan 27, 2008 9:59 PM, Marek <mlf.conv(a)gmail.com> wrote:
But let's have a look at these statements from the GPL:
"...if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a
fee..."
"... You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy..."
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*.
This interpretation is at odds with the FSF's own interpretation. Check
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney to
get it directly from the gnu's mouth, so to speak.
As for the original topic: under the GPLv2, anyone can build hardware around
a piece of GPLed software as long as they offer to give the full source,
including any modifications they made, to anyone asking for it, at cost.
Under the GPLv3 the same thing holds, with the additional stipulation that
if the hardware is field-upgradeable, anyone must be able to do it (e.g. if
the device checks for a cryptographic signature before executing the code,
the seller must provide the required key along with the source).
The restrictions desired by the LS crew therefore do require additional
terms beyond the GPL, and the resulting license is not compatible with the
GPL. These are undisputed facts. The one mildly interesting question is
whether this state of affairs makes LS non-free; reinterpreting a license it
doesn't even use is not going to clarify that.
Daniel.