Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030247AbWI2G4t (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2006 02:56:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030383AbWI2G4t (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2006 02:56:49 -0400 Received: from stat9.steeleye.com ([209.192.50.41]:11443 "EHLO hancock.sc.steeleye.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030247AbWI2G4s (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2006 02:56:48 -0400 Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement From: James Bottomley To: Neil Brown Cc: tridge@samba.org, linux-kernel In-Reply-To: <17692.41932.957298.877577@cse.unsw.edu.au> References: <1159498900.3880.31.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> <17692.41932.957298.877577@cse.unsw.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:56:37 -0700 Message-Id: <1159512998.3880.50.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-4.fc4) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1948 Lines: 40 On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 14:40 +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > You seem to be saying that including software in a product that you > then distribute is *both* a USE and a DISTRIBUTION of that software. Sort of ... I'm asserting that producing something (an appliance say, or a PCI card) that runs linux to achieve its function is a "use" (an act of running the program) within the meaning of GPLv2 clause 0. Selling the Box (or card, or whatever) also becomes a distribution. > So if the software is obtained under the GPL, and the GPL asserts "no > restrictions on use" then it should also not restrict distribution. > It can place requirements that must be met before distribution is > allowed, but they shouldn't be so onerous as to inhibit distribution. > Does that sound right? Not exactly. Under v2, there are specific duties that go along with the act of distributing (providing access to the source code and all modifications), but explicitly none on end use. You can't get out of the distribution requirements simply by claiming it's also a use. However I claim that, the GPLv3 requirement that you be able to "execute modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal context of use" does constitute an end use restriction on the embedded system because the appliance (or card, or whatever) must be designed in such a way as to allow this. If my claim is valid, it means that GPLv3 violates the spirit of GPLv2 because it specifically goes against one of its terms (clause 0). This is the reason the FSF sees the act of running embedded Linux in something to be a distribution; so they can apply the additional restrictions without going against the spirit of GPLv2. James - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/