On Wednesday 21 February 2007 14:59, Chris Schumann wrote: > If they modify the Linux kernel to do their tasks, then they must > distribute that... as LinkSys eventually agreed to do on their > wireless router before they re-designed and removed Linux from it. > > However, if they modified Linux just to get it to run on their box, > they must distribute that. Any application they choose to write for > that platform they can keep as closed as they like. > > Chris > > > I suspect that they mod > > > Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 13:28:04 -0600 > > From: "Sean Waite" <swaite at sbn-services.com> > > > > Kind of funny, I > > did as you said and found an article "Cisco's iPhone violates > > GPL, expert says" - > > http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;435863114;fp;4194304 > >;fpid;1 > > > > > > While Cisco is complaining about Apple using their > > trademark on the Cisco iPhone, Cisco is in turn infringing on the > > GPL....interesting. > > > > Basically it is as I suspected, Cisco has found a great revenue > > stream. Get the Linux geeks to write, update, manage,etc. the > > OS, and they can come in and spend less time just modifying it > > than actually having to write their own OS/IOS. > > > > Now does the > > GPL work like this. Since they are using the Linux OS, and > > modifying to suit > > > > their specific needs, couldn't I take their own source code and > > use it for my own? Meaning take the source for the ACNS units > > and release my own Linux Application and Content networking > > distro so long as it does not contain other license code such as > > Websense? > > p.s. Of course this is all in theory, I don't know > > a (#*@ thing about code, except for what I learned way back when > > on the Radio Shack TSR-80 > > > > Sean Waite > > > > > > Sean Waite > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: "Chris Schumann" <cschumann at twp-llc.com> > > > > To: <tclug-list at mn-linux.org> > > > > Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:23:41 -0600 (CST) > > > > Subject: Re: [tclug-list] Linux, GPL, Source code, and use? > > > >> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:14:53 -0600 > >> > >> From: "Sean Waite" <swaite at sbn-services.com> > >> > >> > >> > >> So, then the question is, don't these companies have to make > >> readily > >> > >> available the source code to what they have done? Generally they > >> are not > >> > >> selling the OS, just a subscription or support. But to get the > >> actual > >> > >> software you have to purchase a support contract, which to me > >> seems like > >> > >> they are in fact selling it. > > > > Yes they do. And Cisco apparently keeps getting in trouble for > > not making > > > > their modified source available. Just enter cisco linux gpl into > > Google > > > > and on the first page are articles from 2003 and 2007. > > > > > > > > Chris > It all comes down to 'distribution'. If you are going to take GPL'd software, modify it for your own purposes, and distribute it, then yes, to be in compliance with the licensing you must make your source code available. If you don't 'distribute' it then you are free from such restrictions. So some examples are in order. Let's take the case of google. They run a custom linux distribution on their servers, but it's not available for download....since they don't distribute it they are not compelled to make the source code available. 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: 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. 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. 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. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel