Etaoin Shrdlu <shrdlu <at> unlimitedmail.org> writes:
> The GPL does allow to sell your product (as opposite to giving it away > for free). Why should Montavista be sued if they respect the GPL? As > long as they distribute the source code with their products (which > admittedly I don't know), they are fine. Just because the sources are > not downloadable from their site, does not mean that they should be > sued. Ummm, I guess you are new to a space that I have worked in for a very long time. Let's make this simple. Why don't you just pose as a company that need MV's EL (embedded linux) and ask for a listing of all of the wonderful thing you can do with MV EL that are superior to the public offerings of EL. Then ask them from their sourcecode to these 'enhancements'. They are not alone, they are just one of the companies selling a RTOS based on EL..... > It seems to me that the difference is not between small or big companies, > but rather between those who obey the GPL and those who do not. Naive, you are! Big companies have lawyer, lobyist and often politicians in their pocket. Over the years most people, at least in countries that pretend to have democracy, have seen this. Remember how the Democratic politicians and state where going after MS and then most of the issues got settled by republican. Yet the EU still slapped MS with lawsuits and punitive damages? If you think small companies are treated just like big one, you are very naive and no amount of evidence will change your mind..... Just ask most anyone that's been in small business before. > Recently, someone noticed that ASUS (not exactly a small company) had not > published the full sources for their eee pc OS on their site; they were > notified, and subsequently they added that code. Read the full story: >http://cliffhacks.blogspot.com/2007/11/asus-eeepc-first-impressions-and-gpl.html >http://cliffhacks.blogspot.com/2007/11/asus-eeepc-some-sources-posted.html You are talking about device drivers here, not products that have a hidxden OS and use linux as the RTOS inside the product. Verifying what is acutally inside of a close (RTOS) system is difficult, at best, and often impossible it the firmware engineer wants to make it difficult for other to analyze. There is a group of firmware engineers that have publically stated that they write for free any device driver for any company using EL. To paraphrase that person, <the problem is not finding coders to write device drivers, it's convincing companies to open source their drivers or allow their products to inter-operate with OS drivers> > Other companies have been sued or notified, but not just because they > were big or small, but because they failed to obey the GPL (xterasys, > monsoon, fortinet, d-link...you can find tons of cases just by googling > a bit), someone even admitted their faults, > In some cases, the companies were declared guilty. true, but it does not affect the point I'm trying to make. What you are talking about is a drop of rain, in an ocean. > > Again you miss the point. If some small company builds a product, they > > are not going to want to stray very far from the linux kernel tree. > > The most they do is write a device driver. If they have some real > > 'magic' you just put a second sub $1 micro processor on the circuit > > board and locate your "magic" therein. It's as easy as eating pie. > > Publish your gpl code on the big micro and hide your magic in a small > > proccessor/DSP/FPGA/PAL. There are many other schemes to get around > > GPL, including writing your own boot loader. (not as difficult as it > > sounds). > > What the GPLv3 is doing is effectively keeping the little guys from > > building products ~100% based on linux and open source. They have not > > stopped a single well funded company (or an entire country like China) > > from using linux and open source as they choose. > Why should they have been stopped? I'd just like the charade to end. GPL keeps the serfs on 'massa farm' It does not stop billion dollar entities from doing whatever they want with EL or any other OS (open source) software. > > This is a very huge reason for the current state of affairs for failed > > technology companies (particularly in the USA), at the present time. > > The Linux Journal has a big campaign to locate "linux inside" of > > products, basically asking folks to 'rat out' companies using linux to > > make a buck. <insert your own conspiracy theory here> > Making money, even lots of money, with linux is not prohibited. What is > wrong is when someone does not obey the GPL, and that's what LJ wants to > do: to discover companies that try to benefit from the work of the linux > community without giving anything back (I think you are referring to > the "linux incognito" initiative here). OK, then why does the GPL not make a simple rule change. If you have grossed over 1 million dollars on your linux product or service, then you have to open source your code. That way the little guys can make some money on an idea and a little bit of code before having to publish their work. Beside how much useful code do you think a small entrepreneur really has? The kernel is full of expert coder that are pushing to get their code into the kernel. There is not a shortage of code or coding experts. What the GPL has effectively done is keep the serfs on the farm shoveling manure, IMHO. Remember I espouse this opinion as one who has had financial success, works out of his garage, and picks his next business ventures, as I please. I'm not some unemployed college kid looking for my first job...... > > You still believe gplv3 is a good thing? I think *GPLv3* is the spawn > > of Satan, and that's the reason most of the kernel devs did not go for > > that *horse hockey*! > > > That being said, it would be fantastic if the Gentoo Foundation > > > found ways to make money :) > > It will never happen as longs as "myths" such as the ones you espouse > > reign supreme, IMHO. The reason that Gentoo and all of those souls > > that develop and support it is floundering on near financial failure, > > is the tenants (goals) that others have brain washed onto the masses, > > IMHO. > > The very best way (IMHO) to promote democracy and freedom is for > > the people to have a way to make money as entrepreneurs and small > > business people. Keeping Linux bottled up, via the GPL is just > > plain nuts! Besides that, Linux only bottled up for the little guys, > > HP, IBM, and thousands of other companies used linux every day in > > products or high end services, such as phone/networking gear. > > Who is suing them? > Nobody, because they obey the GPL. *(WRONG)* > > Hell, the US DOD uses Linux like crazy... Who are we kidding with > > the entire GPL schrade? (Keep the serfs where they belong, methinks). >They are just *using* linux. What laws are they breaking? Why should they be sued? Your naive to the point of being astounding. If you think that the Industrial Military Complex has not modified you precious GPL code, then we are all in Deep Doo. You might want to find some old farts that have been around the track a few times and have some private conversations with folks that have experienced technology in a deeper environment that you obviously have not experienced. Beside how do you think the US government is dealing with the 'informational security threat' posed by the internet? Here's one piece of code the US government did publish (and fund) SELINUX. Ever heard of that? Common, use your imagination and connect the dots...... James -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
