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.