clipka escreveu:
> Okay, we're talking about two different worlds here (yet again): You're thinking
> of custom-tailored corporate inhouse software; I'm thinking of stuff that is
> typically distributed as shareware (say, for example, tools like UltraEdit).

Yes, most likely.

> Then again, there's companies like the one I currently happen to work for,
> trying to do stuff with embedded Linux; it's an awful hassle, as we found out.

Still, Google is doing it with the Linux-based GPLed android.

> How can you build a Linux box that will be built into a car?
> 
> It basically requires you to (1) use GPL'ed software, because you can't write
> *all* the stuff from scratch, nor can you buy it - there's no true commercial
> alternatives out there;

You could use BSD stuff or some other if you don't want/like GPL.  Or 
write from scratch. :)

> because of that it requires you to (2) release *all*
> the source code of the final product under the GPL as well,

That's the license terms for it.

> and provide
> interested users all necessary tools to - well, let's just call it by name -
> basically "hack" the box and flash their own software into it;

Ubuntu doesn't come with source code and used to not even provide gcc. 
They were in the software repositoires, though.

> but at the same
> time you must (3) keep the automotive company's confidential information (CAN
> bus protocol details and such) secret

Binary data?  Besides, how much of it is to be deep-linked with GPL 
software for it to be required to be released in source form?

>, *and* make sure that nobody can convert
> the car into rolling danger by "hacking" the box.

Anyone can convert the car into rolling danger purposefully, if they so 
want to and have a minimum knowledge of mechanics.  How many users of 
Android-powered cellphones will want to do it, though?

> While clearing away the "legal landmines" of software patents, the FSF is laying
> their own "legal mines" in the territory gained, with the aggressive GPL'ization
> of free software.

So the trouble is that one would like to freely use X software as basis 
for their own without having to comply with the terms of X's license?  I 
call that pirating.  Pirating is genuinely more annoying to me as 
software developer than any over-the-top FSF campaign.

> The problem with it is that the FSF doesn't see it this way; their GPL is geared
> towards making *ALL* user applications free. Including, by the way, web
> applications custom-tailored for an individual website.

Well, if they succeed like they succeeded with their HURD kernel, I'll 
be afraid.  I think it's just a moral stance though:  they know it's 
unrealistic but keep hitting on the ideal anyway.

Post a reply to this message