Re: Hardware license
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 18:58, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > 3. AFAIK, the copyleft in the GPL is not strong enough to
> > prevent that a chip that has been built from a GPLed design
> > is bought by a non-licensee, and resold, soldered into a
> > non-free circuit. This is like creating a non-free artwork
> > out of Debian CDs, but far more severe. I am not sure if
> > there is a possible strategy about this at all, and what the
> > OHGPL is doing about this.
> I was about to complain about this too, but then I realized that the
> situation is not really that different from that of software.
> Say that you have a lot of CDs containing binaries of various GPLed
> programs manufactured. You sell a bunch of your discs to me, and also
> send me a home-burned CD containing the source. The GPL explicitly
> entitles you to do this.
> I throw away the source CD and then start selling the binary discs
> from my retail store. My poor customers will be left with binaries and
> no way to get source, much contrary to the intentions behind the
> GPL. Now what *I* am doing is not really blessed by the GPL, but I
> don't need to care - because I'm not doing any *copying*, I don't need
> any copyright license, so I don't need to accept the GPL.
You're not copying. You're distributing. That is, "to distribute
copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or
other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." So,
you're still in violation.
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
"Once a man has tasted freedom he will never be content to
be a slave." - Walt Disney