On 2/22/07, Josh Paetzel <josh at tcbug.org> wrote: > How about cisco? Well, they don't distribute their software either. > They sell devices that run their software. Let's take a look at the > GPL itself: 1. Cisco *distributed* copies of GLP'd software that they modified. Not a stock kernel with their closed-source app linking to LGPL'd software, as somone else addressed already. 2. You're not looking at the GPL itself, but your off-the-cuff interpretation, which is in direct opposition to *actual evidence* and *sources* posted to the list by others. > Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not > covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of > running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program > is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the > Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). > Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. Running a program is not covered by the GPL, you are correct. But distribution (which by default takes place in a router, microwave or otherwise) *is* covered. When a microwave is distributed with a stock kernel with a closed-source driver, that's fine. If the author modifies the stock kernel though, they must distribute their modifications in some form. Again, addressed with backup sources by others already. > How about the software that runs (choose your embedded device here) > your microwave. Can you get the source code for that, even though > it's based on linux? Of course not. The manufacturer of the > microwave isn't distributing their software, they are simply selling > a device that runs their software. Yes, the manufacturer is distributing that software. *IDENTICAL* to the corollary posted by another re: buying a computer with [some customized] Linux pre-installed. Embedded makes no difference here. However, if the Microwave vendor distributes a stock kernel that runs shell scripts that control their microwave, then no, there is no need to provide source code. > I suspect that a lot of the time when companies roll on this they are > simply trying to avoid bad publicity and getting tied up in court > even if they are bound to win in the end. Besides, who really cares > at the end of the day if you have the source code to an application > that only runs on custom ASICs in a cisco router? I'd guess cisco > doesn't take the time to publish their changes because it's expensive > to do so, not out of some desire to keep their proprietary changes to > themselves. In response to your question in another message re: embedded developers using Linux without distributing changes: The only guy I know and talked to uses BSD as the base for their products (and this is not a small embedded company) *exactly* because of the GPL and license requirements to distribute source code.