Re: Lynx Launches Linux Initiative for the Embedded Market
"Jeffrey B. Siegal" wrote: A common misconception. The GPL does not require someone to release their software without any fee. It requires that: a) Anyone to whom they give the object code also have a right to obtain source code b) They may not prohibit people from further modifying and redistributing the software. Which still means that as soon as you have sold a single copy, you have no legal monopoly on your source code. In other words it will just be a matter of time before it's generally available. On the other hand, you can obviuosly sell a product including GPL code such as the Linux kernel which isn't all free. You can include non-software components such as support and manuals in the product, and you can also include other pieces of software which isn't linked to the kernel or any other GPL code, and is thus not tainted by GPL. But the point with the GPL derivates of GPL code can't legally be monopolized unless the entire product is kept private. If this is a concern, it might be better to base products on FreeBSD where there are no such restrains, but it's not obvious that this is as important as it seems. I this brave new information world, beyond the industrial world, it seems that service and customer relations mean more and more, and the products them- selves mean less and less. Thus source code monopoly might not be such a big thing. Considering the rates of the Red Hat stocks ($236 = Market Capitalization = $16B!!!) it's obviously possible to get very rich on free software, on the other hand it remains to be seen if it's possible to build a profitable company on such a base. (Red Hat has still to make a profit--so far their sales have not covered their costs (disregarding their sales of stocks of course ;-).) /Magnus -- Magnus Lyckå MScEE, ThinkWare AB, Folktrovägen 6C, S-907 51 Umeå tel: 090 - 19 84 98, GSM: 070 - 582 80 65, Fax: 070 - 612 80 65 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www1.tripnet.se/~mly/mlis/ -- To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the command "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the message body. For more information, see http://waste.org/mail/linux-embedded.
Re: Lynx Launches Linux Initiative for the Embedded Market
Magnus Lyckå wrote: Which still means that as soon as you have sold a single copy, you have no legal monopoly on your source code. In other words it will just be a matter of time before it's generally available. Absolutely true. I was just pointing out the difference between this and being forced to give the software away for free. The GPL does not force anyone to give anything away for free. You are permitted (even encouraged) to sell it for a reasonable price. But since you don't have a monopoly, you are forced to keep this price reasonable. Red Hat has still to make a profit--so far their sales have not covered their costs (disregarding their sales of stocks of course ;-).) Actually this isn't quite true. Red Hat was profitable for a time before they began to spend more agressively to expand and position themselves for an IPO. -- To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the command "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the message body. For more information, see http://waste.org/mail/linux-embedded.
RE: Lynx Launches Linux Initiative for the Embedded Market
A common misconception. The GPL does not require someone to release their software without any fee. It requires that: a) Anyone to whom they give the object code also have a right to obtain source code Thanks, but I think its almost same thing, once I buy the the software than I am free to distribute it in whatever manner I like. This may be a constraint for some companies. b) They may not prohibit people from further modifying and redistributing the software. You do not have to provide the source code for free--you can charge a reasonable copying/distribution fee. The term reasonable is very vague, may be something reasonable for me is not resonable for other. Its a way one manipulate it. But is it possible for some companies to offer the GPL protected code as it is and separate update/patch which does not fall under GPL. Since the supplied patch is not a part of kernel (at the time of distribution) but can be considered as a separate copyrightable tool which can convert linux to RTOS. Is it possible? Regards, Yusuf -- To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the command "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the message body. For more information, see http://waste.org/mail/linux-embedded.
Re: Lynx Launches Linux Initiative for the Embedded Market
"Motiwala, Yusuf Ibrahim (Yusuf)" wrote: The GPL does not require someone to release their software without any fee. It requires that: a) Anyone to whom they give the object code also have a right to obtain source code Thanks, but I think its almost same thing, once I buy the the software than I am free to distribute it in whatever manner I like. It isn't the same thing at all as being required to release the software without any fee. This may be a constraint for some companies. Sure. Just like any other piece of software, Linux is not for everybody, for every application. If it doesn't fit, don't use it. By the same token, don't assume that it *can't* fit just because it is different from what you are used to, and requires some adjustment to your business model. The term reasonable is very vague, may be something reasonable for me is not resonable for other. Its a way one manipulate it. There is a fair amount of experience that says basically that reasonable is pretty much whatever you say it is, within reason. I don't think anyone has ever been sued for charging too much. The point of GPL is that the software have source code available and that it be redistributable. How much it costs is really not a major concern of GPL. The FSF itself has been selling distributions at artificially high prices for years as a way of raising money to support its operatings. But is it possible for some companies to offer the GPL protected code as it is and separate update/patch which does not fall under GPL. Since the supplied patch is not a part of kernel (at the time of distribution) but can be considered as a separate copyrightable tool which can convert linux to RTOS. Is it possible? Maybe, but it is certainly outside the spirit of the GPL, even if it might be able to fall within the cracks of the copyright law and the license itself. Keep in mind that Free Software is a community and a social convention as well as legal concept, and it doesn't necessarily make sense to do something which is going to result in ill will (and bad publicity) within the community. -- To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the command "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the message body. For more information, see http://waste.org/mail/linux-embedded.
Re: Lynx Launches Linux Initiative for the Embedded Market
But is it possible for some companies to offer the GPL protected code as it is and separate update/patch which does not fall under GPL. Since the supplied patch is not a part of kernel (at the time of distribution) but can be considered as a separate copyrightable tool which can convert linux to RTOS. Is it possible? Maybe, but it is certainly outside the spirit of the GPL, even if it might be able to fall within the cracks of the copyright law and the license itself. Keep in mind that Free Software is a community and a social convention as well as legal concept, and it doesn't necessarily make sense to do something which is going to result in ill will (and bad publicity) within the community. I do not see anything wrong if somebody want to adopt this aproach. One is offering a solution and wants to retain the copyright, well perfectly fine as long as solution is developed solely by the offerer. What we are getting is some additional good open source softwares/solutions which is definately better than none additional. Regards, Yusuf -- To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the command "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the message body. For more information, see http://waste.org/mail/linux-embedded.
Re: Lynx Launches Linux Initiative for the Embedded Market
"Motiwala, Yusuf Ibrahim (Yusuf)" wrote: Since the linux kernel is protected by GPL, would not it required for BlueCat to release the complete source without any fee? same can be asked for lineo. At a press conference on blue-cat, an employee of Lynx told me, that Bluecat-Linux is GPLed. At least, Bluecat-Linux is only a non-realtime target-OS, that should be 100% compatible with LynxOS 4.0 (better read it the other way round). So you don't have to pay any license fees for selfmade additional copies/installations on hundreds of targets. But what is sold (from what i have understood) is the integrated realtime development environement, that is running on top of a RedHat-based distribution. As this tools are user-space programs (like StarOffice, etc.) developed by Lynx, they don't fall under the GPL. As Bluecat-Linux is also RedHat-based, you can use Bluecat-Linux as OS for the development system, as well, of course. You may use Bluecat-Linux without the LynxOS-Tools, for example as a base for RT-Linux applications, and you will also get support from Lynx if you need it, but that will be not free of charge, of course. I asked exactly that situation. The answer was: "As long as one of our product (including Bluecat-linux) is involved in any development, we will give you commercial support". That follows the basic idea: software is free of charge, make money with support. From what i have understood, GPL is not violated ... but who knows :-) Ok, it would be nice to have the IDE also free of charge, but in my opinion $2000 are really peanuts, compared to other industrial IDEs. IMHO, those, who can't afford that, will not need it! emacs, gcc co. are quite ok for doing good development up to a specific point, i.e. the full flight simulator worth $12.000.000 running on linux described in the linux journal half a year ago, was completly developed with linux and gnu-tools. If you have a bigger project than that, so that you need such tools like Lynx offers them, then woun't look at the $2000 - trust me :-) just my 0.02 euro Bernhard Kuhn -- To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the command "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the message body. For more information, see http://waste.org/mail/linux-embedded.
Re: Lynx Launches Linux Initiative for the Embedded Market
Bernhard Kuhn wrote: "Motiwala, Yusuf Ibrahim (Yusuf)" wrote: Since the linux kernel is protected by GPL, would not it required for BlueCat to release the complete source without any fee? same can be asked for lineo. I'm not sure why everyone is making it so complicated. The GNU license and terms are fairly clear and well documented. Linux is an OS. If you modify the OS, then you are obliged to make those modifications public and freely available (so that others can see what you've done and possibly improve on it and/or modify it). If you write an *application* program which runs on top of Linux, you can do what you damn well please with it. That is, you can make it "open-source", you can distribute it however you please, you can refuse to offer the source, etc. As an example - WordPerfect runs on top of Windows. If Windows was distributed under the same rules as Linux, would they have to give it away? The answer is NO. They haven't modified Windows (in which case the changes would be required to be public). They've created a program which belongs to them and they can do whatever they want with it - release it as GPL or whatever. For some strange reason people seem to think that *anything* that has to do with Linux *must* be given away and *must* be free (source and all). This is simply not true. If you modify Linux or other pieces of it that have been released under GNU, then YES - you must abide by the terms stated by the authors. If you write your own code/application that simply uses Linux as an OS (and does not modify it) - you can do whatever you want! Time to get the record straight - and let's get on with it. If I write something that runs under Linux, I DO NOT have to give it away! I may choose to - for the sake of having others improve it - but I do NOT HAVE TO... Wish more people would take the time to read the GPL and/or the terms under which other authors have released their code. In particular, the fallacy about "just use BSD" would finally be put to bed! -- To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the command "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the message body. For more information, see http://waste.org/mail/linux-embedded.
Re: Lynx Launches Linux Initiative for the Embedded Market
Bill, It was my understanding that what you say is true, unless your application links to some of the GPL'd libraries. In the event that you link to the GPL'd libs, you need to make the source code available. You can charge a reasonable amount for the source code. ie: distribution CD == $25.00 I hate the legal stuff, but if anyone wants to comment on this, I believe the relevant document is: http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/lesser.html Section #5 and #6. Mike At 06:32 PM 11/30/99 -0800, Bill Shields wrote: Time to get the record straight - and let's get on with it. If I write something that runs under Linux, I DO NOT have to give it away! I may choose to - for the sake of having others improve it - but I do NOT HAVE TO... -- To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the command "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the message body. For more information, see http://waste.org/mail/linux-embedded.
Re: Lynx Launches Linux Initiative for the Embedded Market
Mike McQuade wrote: It was my understanding that what you say is true, unless your application links to some of the GPL'd libraries. In the event that you link to the GPL'd libs, you need to make the source code available. Most of the libraries are not GPL (especially the core ones like libc), they are LGPL (used to be called "library GPL" but has been renamed to "lesser GPL"). LGPL libraries do *not* require you to release the source for your application, only for the library itself. To continue the WordPerfect example, WordPerfect for Linux uses numerous libraries, but the source code is not available, and the application itself is not redistributable. You can charge a reasonable amount for the source code. ie: distribution CD == $25.00 No one defined $25 as the reasonable fee. If the item is a speciality low volume one where making a source distribution is a custom process, $250 (or perhaps more) could easily be considered a reasonable fee. -- To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the command "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the message body. For more information, see http://waste.org/mail/linux-embedded.
