> If I understand > correctly then, since I'm just distributing the OS on a CD-ROM and > it's not modifiable by nature like it would be if it were installed on > a disk, I'm not obligated to provide the source code according to this > section of the GPL, since it's a ROM and not modifiable by anyone once > burned. To try to modify it would just render it useless.
The paragraph you quoted only adds a requirement to include Installation Information if it's in a User Product. The rest of section 6 requires providing the source code, also if it's not in a User Product. > For this reason, I think this > part in section 6 of the GPL should be totally removed if it really > strives to be a free license, because I think this is a non-free > provision. It has a different purpose: if you have a machine with a GPL3-licensed program for which the vendor can provide updates (i.e. not in ROM), you can install your own modification. (The practical result is that most such products do not come with GPL3-licensed software.) A license that allows distributing modified versions without source can be free: BSD and Apache licenses do this.
pgpPUODP8Ja6T.pgp
Description: PGP signature
