8 Apr
2004
8 Apr
'04
11:38 a.m.
On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 22:44, will(a)malefactor.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 04:08:34AM +0200, Marek
Peteraj wrote:
Note that only 3 a) and 3 b) apply in our case.
On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 21:29, will(a)malefactor.org
wrote:
That's one of three options that the GPL gives you in section 3. On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 01:57:32AM +0200, Marek
Peteraj wrote:
The GPL explicitly states:
'to give _any_ third party ... a complete machine-readable copy of the
corresponding source code ...'
> Companies using Linux in musical gear besides Lionstracs: Plugzilla (a
> rack that can play VSTs), Muse Receptor (similar concept), Hartman
> Neuron (a synth). Unfortunately the others are based on pretty
> closed design and most don't even tell you that's based on Linux.
> Perhaps their attitude will change
> in future.
I just quickly checked their sites, and there's indeed absolutely no
mention of using Linux. If they're all indeed using Linux, then it's an
obvious breach of the GPL license.
Marek
IIRC, they only have to provide the sources to people who buy the
products. It also
says you can accompany "the Program (or a work based on it, under
Section 2) in object code or executable form" with the source. It seems
to me like they could just put a CD with the source code in the box with
their product and be compliant.
<snip>
Their websites sites aren't "verbatim copies of the Program's source
code."
The keyword 'General Public' applies to each Section of the GPL , and
you have to interpret every statement made by the GPL with respect to
'general public'. The GPL also uses the term ‚any third party'.
For example, you may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a
copy, in which case you'd normally restrict access to those who pay. In
that case you're obliged to put a general public notice that _any_ third
party, which intends to pay a fee, will do so for the physical act of
transferring a copy of GPLed software, which is being distributed in
form of machine readable source-code or as an object or executable form.
In case of distributing an object or executable form, you need inform
that the corresponding source-code is included or include an offer.
You might ask, why? Because there's no way to find out if there's a GPL
violation happening when the distributor denies access by charging
a fee, which would make such license obsolete. General public means that
the general public or any third party should know.
In Section 1, the GPL allows to charge a higher fee than the cost of
physically performing source distribution, while not allowing to charge
more than the cost of physically performing source distribution in
section 3 b), which means that if you intend to charge for the physical
act of transferring a copy of the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form, you're allowed to
charge more aswell, but in that case, if you don't provide the
source-code, you can't do additional charges and you have to make an
offer and provide it in case any third party is interested.
If you do not intend to charge a fee(which is the case of the previously
mentioned companies), then 'general public' applies again, no matter
whether it's a machine readable source-code, object or executable,
meaning that you can't restrict access to your customers and you have to
comply with the GPL. Or if you do restrict the access, a general public
notice should apply, but that's questionable. If not, it's perfectly
fine to ship the source-code while entirely compying with Section 1 (,2)
of the GPL license or to ship the object/executable while entirely
complying with Sections 1,2,3. But that applies to both a CD shipped
with a product or a website download.
Marek