[SGVLUG] Dash Express GPS

[Charles Wyble]

Emerson, Tom (*IC) wrote:
>> -----Original Message----- Of Charles Wyble
>>
>>
>> Stan Slonkosky wrote:
>>     
>>
>> So here is my question. Most of the GPL code downloads are 
>> simply user 
>> land bits and GNU tool chain.
>> In other words things you can get anyway.
>>
>> Is this required to distribute?
>>     


Tom,

Thank you very much for taking the time to write back. :)

No arguments with the vast majority of what you said.
>
> It may depend on which version of the GPL they are using.
>
> GPLv2 section 3, which covers distribution in OBJECT/BINARY form,
> states:
>
> The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
> making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code
> means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
> associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control
> compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special
> exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is
> normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major
> components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on
> which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the
> executable. 
>
> =========
>
> Note the "special exception" -- as you noted, many of the items are "the
> tool chain" [compiler, linker, etc.] and would be exempt per this
> clause.  HOWEVER, if you INCLUDE the "tools" as part of the object
> package, you need to include the source.  (by virtue of this same clause
> -- in order to distribute an Unmodified version of the program, you
> still have to provide [access to] the source)
>   

Right. It just seems all these companies jumping up and down and saying 
they provide the code... whoop de do they
provided things that I can apt-get/yum anyway.

Wonder if they provide the tools on the device? Hmmm.
> In this case, should the company provide the tools?  I did see the gcc
> compiler listed as an unmodified item, but can you really "compile" a C
> program /on the device itself/?
>   

Exactly.
> =========
>
>      "..."Installation Information" for a User Product means any
> methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required
> to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User
> Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The
> information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the
> modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely
> because modification has been made."
>
> OK, I could see this covering a "make" script, but again, the compiler
> itself and other "standard tools" would not seem to apply.
>   

I think this was intended to prevent another tivo debacle.
 
> However, the next clause states:
>
>
>   
>> I mean if I make a device that runs Linux and then write a 
>> closed source 
>> app on top to provide the functionality
>> what legal reason do I have to pay for the hosting of various open 
>> source tools?
>>     
>
> Take a closer read of GPLv2 & 3 -- neither one specifically /requires/
> that you make the source and tools available /on a web server/ (they
> both say you must provide /at least one of/ several options, and they
> both include an option that essentailly states that you /may/ charge, up
> to your "actual costs", for a copy of the source) -- see in particular
> GPLv2 3b and GPLv3 6b and 6d.  (6d is kind of tricky -- you can charge
> for the OBJECT code, but having done so, you can't charge anything
> /additional/ for the source) GPLv3 6e is even better -- you're allowed
> to push it out ot a peer-to-peer network, so once it's "out there"
> you're costs to "host" should drop to zero.  Hmmm... Actually, GPLv3
> section 4, "verbatim copies" indicates you can distribute verbatim
> copies for "any price or no price for each copy you convey".  So while
> you're limited to "your cost" to provide any source code that you
> modify, you could charge a million dollars for the compiler, provided
> you don't actually modify the compiler.
>   

Sure no specific web server requirement, but it's a commonly accepted 
method of distribution. :)

And yes RedHat charges a hefty premium for object code distribution,  
and includes a support
contract. They also provide the source code.

Now one could say that the support contract clause which invalidates 
your contract if you modify
the source code violates the spirit and letter of the GPL.

-- 
Charles Wyble (818) 280 - 7059
http://charlesnw.blogspot.com
CTO Known Element Enterprises / SoCal WiFI project