On Jan 27, 2008 9:59 PM, Marek <mlf.conv@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.