[lwip-users] Re: Re: Re: [lwip] Should LwIP go (L)GPL ?

[Paul Sheer]

> 
> Example:  Cygnus (now RHAT) provided a commercial version of GCC and
> friends entitled GNU Pro.  This often included custom and proprietary ports
> to various embedded and not-so-embedded architectures.  Because Cygnus sold
> this modified version of GCC _for_profit_, they did not post the source for
> anyone and everyone to grab.  They didn't have to.  Companies purchasing
> GNU Pro tools could request sources if they wished, as this is part of the
> GPL licensing requirement.  Some of those ports found themselves in the
> public gnu.org CVS tree, others were left to the discretion of whomever
> contracted Cygnus for that port.  There was nothing illegal about this
> setup.

of course, i agree

but they are still forced to at least advertise
that their modified gcc was a GPL work. such an
advert is essentially a promise to provide source
code.

so in my opinion, there is not a huge difference
between (1) providing source code, and (2) advertising
that you shall provide source code on request.

can you explain why you feel that the difference
between (1) and (2) makes a substantial case for
or against using the GPL for ones own software?

(please note that this does not mean i think we should
use GPL for LwIP at all)

> 
> There are also numerous examples of companies that modify GPL software
> in-house for their own use, and those modifications never see the light of
> day.

of course. For ALL open source licenses, use for
in-house work is fair game.

> > Yes they ARE obligated.
> > This is because they are "distributing" a "work based on the program".
> 
> 
> You still don't understand.  If I give my friend Joe a modification of a
> GPL'd program that I didn't write, neither myself nor Joe are required
> (obligated, forced, gagged or bound) to give Paul, the original author,
> those modifications.

ok, i got mixed up between your "A"s and "B"s

the person who MADE those modifications must
provide source code on request, of course

> 
> Right.  Nowhere does it state that source must be placed in a SASE and
> mailed to the author of the Program.  Source only has to go where the
> binary program is distributed.

well if i were the author, i would certainly make a request
for that modified source in each and every case so as to
keep my software as featureful as possible.

> 
> I'd advise you to spend some time reading the GPL FAQs or mail one of the
> FSF legal mailing lists.
> 

well i think we both agree

i just don't see of what relevance this all has
that would make you choose for or against the GPL
as a license for ones own work.

-paul

Paul Sheer Consulting IT Services . . Tel . . . +27 (0)21 6869634
Email . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . address@hidden
Linux development, cryptography, recruitment,  support,  training
http://www.icon.co.za/~psheer . . . . . . http://rute.2038bug.com
L I N U X . . . . . . . . . . . .  The Choice of a GNU Generation

[This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]