> Maybe I misunderstood something about licensing stuff but, can't you just > distribute the working build product (binaries etc, without source) to > the TV set (or kiosk) and keep the source in a completely separate open > space, under some open source license? I mean, does open source (gpl, > mit) mean, you have to distribute the source in the same device?
No, you're correct. It can be distributed separately, even "on request" is good enough to comply with gpl it seems. And then practically it's even possible to ignore people and still not share a bit, as countless companies show over and over again. And then you can just run the software yourself and not even give the binaries to anybody, instead they get a locked down horrible web interface, and nobody can even ASK for the software and so you never even get a valid request and nobody will ever know what GPL code you use. I.E. GPL is rather useless nowadays. Still there's a value of distributing the source with the binaries: user friendliness. As demonstrated by Plan9. As I already said. The value of this is huge and it would be sad to see somebody give it up just to save a few bytes. Binaries, Source, Compilers, Documentation, for *all* target platforms. Where else do you get this all in one like this? It's sadly very unique to Plan9. Of course this is completely separate from the license. I have never seen a license state that you shouldn't make your user's life miserable. Not like it's any more enforceable than the GPL, but it would certainly be more amusing, which would be the point. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T3e07bfdf263a83c8-M2736265fa89bc774af9d1534 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
