On Sat, Dec 30, 2000 at 10:25:31PM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> > I'd say that as soon as a company releases software, it doesn't matter
> > whether the company's core business is hardware or not. The software
> > is governed by the same laws.
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand: do you mean the GPL should or should not be
> > applicable to hardware? Or firmware (there was a discussion on
> > debian-devel about firmware not long ago, unfortunately without
> > conclusive findings).
>
> I'm not talking about applying the GPL to the hardware itself, or about
> hardware companies making software (a la Sun's Java) - I was talking
> about how the GPL applies to software that comes prepackaged with some
> hardware.
>
> I think that the computer-VCR-appliance makers I described above should be
> allowed to put GPL software on their machines and sell them. And here is
> my rationale:
>
> Consider a PC maker, say Compaq (just an example!), that sells computers
> with Linux (say, a Redhat distribution) preinstalled in them (with a manual
> that describes how to get the sources of the programs from the Internet). Is
> this legal? I think it would be very hard to find somebody who thinks it isn't.
> Now, what if our PC maker adds a proprietary piece of software to the
> preinstalled system, e.g., some cool game that runs on Linux? Is this ok?
> I have a very hard time to understand why not. The sources to that game are
> not available, but the sources to all the GPLed programs are still available.
> So, if you consider what our hypothetical PC maker did as being legal and
> acceptable, then how different is this from the computer-VCR case, where
> somebody is selling a PC with a bit of extra hardware (TV card, remote
> control, etc.) and some selection of proprietary software (the software that
> does the video recording and provides the user interface)?
I don't think it contradicts the GPL, unless GPLed programs were
modified with proprietary extensions in the process. Of course, I
would much prefer free software on such Linux VCR. Proprietary
software is not as well accepted as free software in the Linux world,
and is considered "taking advantage without giving back".
> Because I consider these two cases to be impossible to differentiate, and
> because the first case (PC maker selling preinstalled linux-based machines)
> is so acceptable and even desirable to the free-software community, I would
> have to conclude that making a hardware package that includes a GPLed program
> should be considered legal.
And indeed is. But why not walk the extra mile? I think Tivo did.
> By the way, what is RMS's thoughts about selling a CD containing some GPLed
> programs (complete with full source code and GPL license) and some other
> commercial programs (that don't have source code, and the license prohibit
> copying them)? This is very similar to the hardware case above, and I would
> consider such a distribution ok too, but maybe other people disagree with
> me here.
RMS has stated his opinion loud and clear in the GPL:
"In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License."
;)
> > And by the way: has anyone in Israel tried any of these machines? I
> > suppose the schedule planning features cannot be used, because they
> > are tried to a service that is only given in the US, but it still
> > sounds cool enough.
>
> I don't have any personal experience with them, unfortunately.
>
> Watch out: if you buy such a machine in the U.S. (or Japan), then most likely
> it will only work for NTSC... Before you buy one, check if they can also
> record PAL.
Ouch.
- Adi Stav
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
