Op 21-Sep-14 15:25, Grant Edwards schreef:> On 2014-09-20, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: >> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef: >>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote: >> >>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >>>> want to *have to* share it. >>> >>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they >>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they >>> aren't obligated to share with me. >> >> True, but you do have to share it with your customers, > > No, you don't. You can modify GPL code and not share it.So you are saying I could take a GPL product, for example Linux, modify it, sell it to customers but still deny them access to the source code? That is an interpretation of GPL that I haven't heard before. If your interpretation is correct I wonder what the big deal is with GPL and why companies who sell products based on GPL'ed code even bother which providing (usually not only) their customers access to the source code?>> and if they want to share it with the rest of the world GPL assures >> they are allowed to do exactly that. So in practical terms your >> modifications are open to the rest of the world. > > Only if you decide to share the modified program.Which is exactly what you do when you sell it to your customers.> If you just want to > modify and and _not_ share it at all, that's fine.That is only when you keep it to yourself, my understanding of GPL is that as soon as you sell it you are not allowed to deny your customers access to your (modified) sources.
Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards?
Started by ●September 17, 2014
Reply by ●September 21, 20142014-09-21
Reply by ●September 21, 20142014-09-21
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 01:47:00 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote: <snip>>Why would Google buy Nest? For how many billions of dollars? How many >multiples of their total sales?? Heck, can't the folks at Google come >up with a thermostat design on their own?? :>For access to their customer base. I wouldn't have bought Nests if it were a Google design.
Reply by ●September 21, 20142014-09-21
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 12:34:06 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski <przemek@tux.dot.org> wrote:>On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:28:45 -0700, Don Y wrote: > >> Perhaps next step will be to try a *Windows* install if only to get an >> enumeration of the various "devices" in the box! Then, use that >> information to build an appropriate kernel. > >I usually do the opposite: Linux tends to be better discovering >everything that is visible to the processor. Between lspci, lsusb, >dmidecode and kernel boot messages Linux is likely to see it all, whereas >Windows tends to require installing specific drivers.I don't remember the last time I had to "install" drivers in Windows. It does all that for me. It's been a while since I used Linux but it *never* worked without some serious tweaking, something I do *not* want to do.>This is by the way an advantage that the x86 platform holds over ARM: all >peripherals tend to be on self-aware busses like PCI. On ARM everything >is memory mapped so you do have to know register addresses and functions. >Each platform then has to have a pre-written device tree description of >its peripherals---there is no bare metal introspection.Different markets completely.
Reply by ●September 21, 20142014-09-21
On 21/09/14 15:56, Dombo wrote:> Op 21-Sep-14 15:25, Grant Edwards schreef: >> On 2014-09-20, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: >>> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef: >>>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote: >>> >>>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >>>>> want to *have to* share it. >>>> >>>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >>>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they >>>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they >>>> aren't obligated to share with me. >>> >>> True, but you do have to share it with your customers, >> >> No, you don't. You can modify GPL code and not share it. > > So you are saying I could take a GPL product, for example Linux, modify > it, sell it to customers but still deny them access to the source code? > That is an interpretation of GPL that I haven't heard before. If your > interpretation is correct I wonder what the big deal is with GPL and why > companies who sell products based on GPL'ed code even bother which > providing (usually not only) their customers access to the source code? > >>> and if they want to share it with the rest of the world GPL assures >>> they are allowed to do exactly that. So in practical terms your >>> modifications are open to the rest of the world. >> >> Only if you decide to share the modified program. > > Which is exactly what you do when you sell it to your customers. > >> If you just want to >> modify and and _not_ share it at all, that's fine. > > That is only when you keep it to yourself, my understanding of GPL is > that as soon as you sell it you are not allowed to deny your customers > access to your (modified) sources.What you say is entirely correct. I think what Grant meant is that you don't have to share any particular code with anyone else if you don't want to - but if you /do/ share it, including by selling them binaries, you have to follow the rules of the licences involved. People sometimes think that if they have made changes to some GPL'ed code, they /must/ make those changes available publicly - when in fact they only need to pass on the changes when they pass on the code in binary or source format.
Reply by ●September 21, 20142014-09-21
On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 18:19:49 +0200, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> Gave us:>On 21/09/14 15:56, Dombo wrote: >> Op 21-Sep-14 15:25, Grant Edwards schreef: >>> On 2014-09-20, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: >>>> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef: >>>>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >>>>>> want to *have to* share it. >>>>> >>>>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >>>>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they >>>>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they >>>>> aren't obligated to share with me. >>>> >>>> True, but you do have to share it with your customers, >>> >>> No, you don't. You can modify GPL code and not share it. >> >> So you are saying I could take a GPL product, for example Linux, modify >> it, sell it to customers but still deny them access to the source code? >> That is an interpretation of GPL that I haven't heard before. If your >> interpretation is correct I wonder what the big deal is with GPL and why >> companies who sell products based on GPL'ed code even bother which >> providing (usually not only) their customers access to the source code? >> >>>> and if they want to share it with the rest of the world GPL assures >>>> they are allowed to do exactly that. So in practical terms your >>>> modifications are open to the rest of the world. >>> >>> Only if you decide to share the modified program. >> >> Which is exactly what you do when you sell it to your customers. >> >>> If you just want to >>> modify and and _not_ share it at all, that's fine. >> >> That is only when you keep it to yourself, my understanding of GPL is >> that as soon as you sell it you are not allowed to deny your customers >> access to your (modified) sources. > >What you say is entirely correct. I think what Grant meant is that you >don't have to share any particular code with anyone else if you don't >want to - but if you /do/ share it, including by selling them binaries, >you have to follow the rules of the licences involved. People sometimes >think that if they have made changes to some GPL'ed code, they /must/ >make those changes available publicly - when in fact they only need to >pass on the changes when they pass on the code in binary or source format.Look at the Nvidia driver 'model'... err... cockup. So bad it actually invades kernel compilations. What a set of complications! It is all about little "important" IP code bits that matter. All the basic template glue stuff is no big deal, unless someone is big on calling the interface glitz "IP". That is (or should be) separate from code that essentially forms a "process engine" for handling some other data. Those little "process engines" are what it is about. Outside of crypto and security segments, that is.
Reply by ●September 21, 20142014-09-21
On 9/21/2014 4:33 AM, rickman wrote:>>> The question is why do you want someone to build 100,000 of them? >> >> Don't *you* want your designs used? > > Are these two things equivalent in your mind? If I want my designs used, I'm > not going to worry about whether a company can use them to make profit. I > would prefer to make that myself. > > This is *very* off the topic we have been discussing.You asked why I would want someone to build 100,000 (or *any*!) of them. What's the rule or discussions, here? If you ask a question, I should NOT answer it for fear of being accused of dragging the discussion off-topic? While YOU folks seem to gripe about the length of my posts and how far afield they get, please recall that this happens as a CONSEQUENCE of questions that YOU FOLKS raise! *I* asked about Atoms. I didn't bring Linux or manufacturing my own products into this discussion. Please browse back upthread to see how these issues were raised. In the future, please don't be annoyed if I respond to questions for further clarification -- or suggestions -- with a terse: "No", or "that's not important". That way the discussion will remain on topic. I *always* try to provide adequate information to elicit thoughtful responses. If you need more (e.g., "why do you want to do this?") then I'm sorry, I'll just have to reply with "treat it as a homework problem: wombats crossing the road, etc." Presumably, you are all capable of answering a question posed in the abstract? Without being completely constrained/specified? That way, you won't have to wonder what hair-brained scheme I am working on; or "save" me from an approach you consider fool-hardy; or "educate" me on the marvels of Gismodics. *SO* much easier for all of us, eh? I won't have to write long explanations -- or pose examples of why I am taking a particular approach or a particular situation that I have anticipated (if you invest a comparable amount of time, you can always anticipate that situation yourself! And, if you're not really that interested in the issue, then you won't mind NOT knowing of those pitfalls). Because it really isn't worth the hassle trying to explain myself and then being berated for "not sticking to the subject", "too long-winded", etc.>>>> This is a sizable investment. One would want to be sure to be able >>>> to make >>>> money on the manufacture (and any future product enhancements) before >>>> opening up their wallet! >>> >>> Do you have anyone interested? If someone wanted to market such a >>> product, the >>> actual engineering of the board and software is not the biggest part >>> of their >>> expense. As you realize the packaging is a huge investment and the >>> marketing >>> on top. Why would they bother with your design rather than design it >>> themselves. >> >> Why would Google buy Nest? For how many billions of dollars? How many >> multiples of their total sales?? Heck, can't the folks at Google come >> up with a thermostat design on their own?? :> > > Do you think the only value of Nest is their electronic designs? Remember all > those other things I mentioned that are required to launch a product? Then > there is risk. Why try to create something not knowing how well it will turn > out vs. grabbing something that is already successful.The Market hadn't claimed Nest was a "success". Note the bru-ha-ha over the price Google paid.>>> I think I have the answer to that... the answer to my previous >>> question... is anyone interested? >> >> I haven't offered it to anyone. OTOH, you see lots of big companies (e.g., >> Apple, MS, Google) trying to figure out how to develop this market. >> None of >> them seem to have taken "big enough" steps, yet (fearful that consumers may >> not be ready?) > > I think you will find nearly everyone in the large companies will *not* be at > all interested in your design.Yes. Just like nearly everyone in large companies is NOT interested in Linux, PostgreSQL, Apache, etc. Silly me! Obviously no one in business is interested in "free IP"! Everyone adheres to NIH philosophy.> If nothing else they likely would not want the > world to potentially find out they are using your design that they can get > themselves. Companies want to be in control of their destiny and this would be > out of their control from a marketing perspective.That's why you use an unencumbered license! Here's a working design. Look at ALL of it's implementation details. Read *why* each decision was made in the hardware, software, system choices. *TAKE* from that WHATEVER YOU WANT and use it as the basis for a similar/better product. ["I don't care if you reproduce an identical copy of my code, my hardware or my system approach. But, by adopting the design "conceptually", you will bring products LIKE THIS to the market. That's more than I can get *now*. And, if I think you've done a poor job, I can't sue you -- yet, I can still reproduce *my* designs if I decide to make that investment"]>> Regardless, *I* am ready and see this as a vehicle to explore some of >> my design ideas... > > That doesn't require that someone be interested in making 100,000 of them.Of course not! *I* will have my golden master. *My* needs will be satisfied. I have many "gadgets" that exist only in this house. When folks see them and express an interest in having one, I just smile and shake my head. "Gee, that gizmo that screens your phone calls is really slick! Can you make one for me?" "Wow, your heating/cooling bill is lower than ours and yet your home is always just as comfortable. Can I get one of those thermostats?" "How do you keep all those plants thriving IN THE DESERT and not have an outrageous water bill? Can I have whatever it is you're using?" "Hmmm... how did you know it was me at the front door? I wish *I* could know who it was so I could avoid those damn pollsters and lawn service companies! Really annoying to have to answer the bell only to discover it's someone trying to sell me something!" Do you see? "No, there are more interesting things that I want to do with my time than build one of those for you!">>>> I don't want to build even HUNDREDS! I spent a fair bit of time, >>>> recently, >>>> trying to avoid building the *prototypes*! I am far more interested in >>>> getting the *design* right. So everything "plays well" together, looks >>>> like it was designed with a consistent philosophy and methodology, user >>>> interface, etc. Building (even prototype quantities) is largely a >>>> "chore"! >>> >>> I'm not sure why you are designing hardware really. Some things I do-----------------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>>> for fun, but most I do for profit and there can be lots of profit in >>> designing the right hardware. >> >> This is mainly "fun" -- an unconstrained learning experience. Of course, I >> will also benefit from the resulting products (even if I only build >> prototypes >> to satisfy my own personal requirements). >> >> I *have to* design and build hardware because I can't purchase anything >> off the shelf that has similar capabilities/characteristics -- even if I >> could "drop" my software into it! >> >> E.g., my "network speaker" design has to fit in a traditional "1 gang" junction >> box. (Well, it doesn't *have* to but it sure would be far more convenient >> to include in new home designs and existing home retrofits if it just >> looked like a "light switch/duplex receptacle" -- than if it was a 4" x 4" PCB!) >> >> Without resorting to full (or even semi-custom) implementations, it's just not >> practical to cram that much stuff on a tiny board. So, I use both sides of >> a couple of boards, sandwiched to give me the appropriate form factor. No one >> would build a generic system with the same hardware capabilities in that >> "odd" form factor/envelope. > > So how does this relate to Linux?You asked why I was making my own hardware. Don't ask a question and then complain when I answer it! How does Linux relate to "Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards?">>>>> I think the problem is that from the beginning the discussion was >>>>> about *using* >>>>> a GPL'd OS. But in your mind that means modifying it and including >>>>> it a >>>>> product which you have only skirted around until now. The rest of us >>>>> have not >>>>> been talking about building products that include the GPL'd code. >>>> >>>> You initially asked why Linux "couldn't do that" (probe the Atom's >>>> hardware). >>>> I mentioned that I don't *use* Linux. From there, explained why I >>>> didn't >>>> (because I can't leverage anything that I learn/copy from its sources >>>> without >>>> being encumbered with it's GPL). >>> >>> So you don't use any appliance that is not open source?-------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^>> >> I use lots of close source devices! But, any devices that I want to have >> control over (their implementation) by necessity are open source. >> >> The router/firewall that services this computer is a Linksys device. The >> sources are *probably* available. But, I have no interest in modifying it >> as it does what I want well enough. >> >> OTOH, I am annoyed with a couple of the "closed source" NAS boxes that I >> own. So, one target of the Atom SBC's is to let me discard those "closed" >> boxes and move the files onto the Atom SBC's (even if that means "external >> drives" as the Atom can't support ANY 3.5" drives internally) > > Again we go around in circles. GPL doesn't prevent you from doing any of > this. You are fixated on the idea that if you modify your toaster you want > someone to be able to make 100,000 toasters with your idea and not have to pay > you a dime. Wonderful.Again, you asked if I use non-open source appliances. I indicated that I did. I also indicated criteria for cases where I "roll my own" solution (thereby relying on FOSS). If we've gone 'around in circles', then it's because you led us here.>>>> (sigh) Done for tonight. Another cheesecake to put in the oven. Then, >>>> one *final* one next week. Thank God! :-/ >>> >>> I've spent enough time with you I feel I should get a slice..... :p >> >> <grin> SWMBO would be annoyed -- for her "artist's reception" next week. >> And, it doesn't travel well (though the one I made two days ago leaves for >> Denver on Monday -- LONG drive!). Next week's just has to go across the >> street, here... (neighbor's daughter's wedding) > > I'm not picky. I once made an applesauce cake and took it to work on the back > of my motorcycle... lol, it ended up a pile of mush. No one else would touch > it, but I enjoyed the heck out of it. :)Dairy (cheese) "spoils" if not kept refrigerated. E.g., the Denver cheesecake is traveling under dry ice.
Reply by ●September 21, 20142014-09-21
On 9/21/2014 4:09 AM, David Brown wrote:> On 21/09/14 08:25, Don Y wrote: > >> Obviously, the free software "market" has decided that the GPL isn't the >> solution! If people disliked the fact that PostgreSQL isn't under the >> GPL and *avoided* it -- in favor of MySQL (which is GPL'd, IIRC), then >> the PostgreSQL folks would either decide to embrace the GPL *or* live >> with the market that NOT embracing it leaves them! > > Don, your arguments are all over the place, and you are mixing in all sorts of > issues from different places. It is extremely difficult to discuss things with > you when you are incapable of sticking to the point. The discussion was about > the /Linux kernel/, and whether the fact that it is under the GPL makes it > somehow "evil" and restrictive, and that no sane developer would use it because > of the GPL.No, David, the discussion WAS about "Intel Atoms". Browse back upthread to see how it "was unable to stick to the point". (I.e., *I* didn't inject Linux into the discussion. I didn't inquire as to why Linux wasn't an option for me. Etc.) Also, see my (roughly concurrent) reply to Rick re: how discussions get off topic and the remedies I will use to "keep us all happier" in the future.> A database server like PostgreSQL and MySQL is completely different. Most > people don't modify or adapt them - they use them as-is, and almost nobody > cares about the licenses other than that they are free to use. MySQL is many > times more popular than PostgreSQL because it has a reputation for being faster > and easier to use than PostgreSQL (which is seen as more advanced but more > complex), and has become more well-known. It's a difference in technical > features and market familiarity - the license doesn't come into it. (Please > don't digress into how PostgreSQL is actually faster or easier than MySQL - I > already know, and it is irrelevant here.) > > The only people who really care if these are under the BSD or the GPL are > EnterpriseDB and Oracle, and they both do perfectly well with the licenses they > use and commercial and open source models they use. > > There is plenty of place in the world for the BSD and the GPL licenses, as well > as many others. You can see this from the vast amount of software available > under both these licenses - the "market" has decided that the choice of license > depends on the type of software and the preferences of the author.And that is ****EXACTLY**** what I said: "Obviously, the free software 'market' has decided that the GPL isn't the solution!" would it have been better if I had emphasized "THE solution"? Or, added a second paragraph (and risk even more complains about lack of brevity): Obviously, the free software 'market' has decided that the BSD license isn't the solution! If people disliked the fact that MySQL isn't under the BSD license and *avoided* it -- in favor of PostgreSQL (which is BSD licensed, IIRC), then the MySQL folks would either decide to embrace the BSD license *or* live with the market that NOT embracing it leaves them! Please don't read your own bias into what I write! And then *complain* when I spend more bytes pointing this out.
Reply by ●September 21, 20142014-09-21
Den søndag den 21. september 2014 04.17.30 UTC+2 skrev rickman:> On 9/20/2014 7:33 PM, langwadt@fonz.dk wrote: > > > Den s�ndag den 21. september 2014 01.09.04 UTC+2 skrev rickman: > > >> On 9/20/2014 6:46 PM, Don Y wrote: > > >> > > >>> On 9/20/2014 2:54 PM, Dombo wrote: > > >> > > >>>> Op 20-Sep-14 22:41, Don Y schreef: > > >> > > >>>>> On 9/20/2014 1:34 PM, rickman wrote: > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>>>>> My understanding is exactly the opposite. You can use it any way you > > >> > > >>>>>> wish on > > >> > > >>>>>> your own. But if you share your work with others you just have to > > >> > > >>>>>> share the > > >> > > >>>>>> source code as well. I don't see any restriction on who or how you > > >> > > >>>>>> share any > > >> > > >>>>>> of this. :S > > >> > > >>>>> > > >> > > >>>>> It *requires* you to share it! > > >> > > >>>>> > > >> > > >>>>> Does your employer share *his* codebase with his customers? > > >> > > >>>>> Competitors?? > > >> > > >>>>> > > >> > > >>>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't > > >> > > >>>>> want to > > >> > > >>>>> *have to* share it. > > >> > > >>>> > > >> > > >>>> If you want to take but not give then GPL is not for you. You are not > > >> > > >>>> alone in > > >> > > >>>> avoiding the GPL; the conditions stated in the GPL are often not > > >> > > >>>> acceptable in > > >> > > >>>> a (traditional) commercial setting and are either worked around or > > >> > > >>>> avoided > > >> > > >>>> altogether by choosing a product which has a licensing scheme that is > > >> > > >>>> more > > >> > > >>>> compatible with commercial requirements. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> It's not just "take but not give". E.g., I plan on offering all of my > > >> > > >>> sources > > >> > > >>> to "anyone who wants them, to do with EXACTLY as they please" -- with the > > >> > > >>> sole requirement that they acknowledge me as the original copyright holder > > >> > > >>> and indemnify me from damages, etc. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> However, if *they* don't want to share what THEY add; or, don't want to > > >> > > >>> assume responsibility for redistributing *my* sources (or even disclosing > > >> > > >>> *which* sources they used!), then they shouldn't be REQUIRED to do so! > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> If you code is covered by the GPL by being part of some existing GPL > > >> > > >> code, how can you be sharing it without also sharing the original GPL > > >> > > >> code. Is this an issue of defining *when* code must be covered by the GPL? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> If I deliver my sources to exactly ONE entity and then decide never to > > >> > > >>> offer them to any other entities, the first entity can LEGALLY keep them > > >> > > >>> "hidden" with no other obligations to me or any of his customers, etc. > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> This is how traditional licenses work -- you are free to do what you want > > >> > > >>> (and ONLY what you want!) with things that you "own". > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Good luck on that one. You "own" *NOTHING*. Try telling the government > > >> > > >> that you "own" your house and you don't want to pay the taxes on it > > >> > > >> since it is yours and not theirs. Or try adding a second story without > > >> > > >> a permit, or ... > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> You still "own" the code you have written even though it is covered by > > >> > > >> GPL. You just are required to provide sources if you give it to anyone > > >> > > >> else. As with *many* things there are limits to what you can do with > > >> > > >> the things you own. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> I have no desire to "educate" potential commercial (or private) concerns > > >> > > >>> as to how they can "live within" the GPL. I'll just avoid it entirely and > > >> > > >>> be none the worse for wear! (because there are unencumbered alternatives) > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> My goal is to see my code *used*. As it doesn't run on a generic PC, > > >> > > >>> "being used" means having people invest in creating hardware designs AND > > >> > > >>> BUILDING THOSE DESIGNS. A big incentive for doing that is if they feel > > >> > > >>> they > > >> > > >>> can PROFIT from that (moreso than a 10% markup on a "board + components") > > >> > > >>> > > >> > > >>> Who wants to invest thousands of dollars in a design, marketing, support, > > >> > > >>> enhancements, etc. if you are competing with SparkFun? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I do. I am looking for a project I can design and produce to the > > >> > > >> "hobby" market with some potential for the professional market. My > > >> > > >> stumbling block is the software that is required for most projects these > > >> > > >> days. I've looked at the rPi and can't find an example of a decent > > >> > > >> driver as one example. > > >> > > > > > > a driver for what? > > > > Specifically a set of ADCs on the SPI bus. Someone was looking to > > simultaneously sample six ADCs for some signal processing and couldn't > > find anything for the rPI. Seems the SPI drivers are not very fast for > > whatever reason and regardless of speed can't be controlled by any sort > > of a hardware timer for stability. Unless I have missed something in > > the Broadcom manual it will require external hardware to establish the > > timing, then the SPI interface needs to be sped up to get adequate > > throughput. >afaict the spi can run at upto 125MHz, though I doubt the IOs will do that it can be setup for DMA I haven't seen many (any) spi that was really suited for synchronous transfers if anything you would have to hack it up using timers to generate clk and ce and run the spi as slave. the rPI has an I2S interface that is much more suited, there is a driver for for running stereo audio I don't know if the HW will support more slots to do more ADCs> > Are you using Google Groups? All the quotes are double spaced. >yep.. -Lasse
Reply by ●September 21, 20142014-09-21
On 9/21/2014 6:25 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:> On 2014-09-20, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: >> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef: >>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote: >> >>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >>>> want to *have to* share it. >>> >>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they >>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they >>> aren't obligated to share with me. >> >> True, but you do have to share it with your customers, > > No, you don't. You can modify GPL code and not share it. What the > GPL does is place requirements on _how_ you share it should you decide > to do so.The problem in this statement is the implications of the word "share". In a colloquial sense, we think of sharing as something COOPERATIVE that you do. In this context, "buying into the FOSS idea". Your statement is more technical: read "share" as "distribute it to anyone for any purpose" (e.g., SELLING something is "sharing" in your statement) Microsoft SHARES Windows with us! :> OTOH, the modifications to my systems aren't "shared" with anyone!>> and if they want to share it with the rest of the world GPL assures >> they are allowed to do exactly that. So in practical terms your >> modifications are open to the rest of the world. > > Only if you decide to share the modified program. If you just want to > modify and and _not_ share it at all, that's fine.Conversely, "Not sharing" is NOT selling, distributing, etc. "Keeping it entirely to yourself".
Reply by ●September 21, 20142014-09-21
On 9/21/2014 6:56 AM, Dombo wrote:> Op 21-Sep-14 15:25, Grant Edwards schreef: >> On 2014-09-20, Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> wrote: >>> Op 20-Sep-14 23:29, rickman schreef: >>>> On 9/20/2014 4:41 PM, Don Y wrote: >>> >>>>> I want to make changes, improvements to a piece of code. I don't >>>>> want to *have to* share it. >>>> >>>> No, you don't have to share anything. There are any number of vendors >>>> who use GPL code and they have never shared any of it with me and they >>>> won't even if I ask... because I haven't bought their product, so they >>>> aren't obligated to share with me. >>> >>> True, but you do have to share it with your customers, >> >> No, you don't. You can modify GPL code and not share it. > > So you are saying I could take a GPL product, for example Linux, modify it, > sell it to customers but still deny them access to the source code? That is an > interpretation of GPL that I haven't heard before. If your interpretation is > correct I wonder what the big deal is with GPL and why companies who sell > products based on GPL'ed code even bother which providing (usually not only) > their customers access to the source code?No. See my reply. "Sharing" effectively means "not hiding it in your closet". Selling is sharing. Giving away is sharing.>>> and if they want to share it with the rest of the world GPL assures >>> they are allowed to do exactly that. So in practical terms your >>> modifications are open to the rest of the world. >> >> Only if you decide to share the modified program. > > Which is exactly what you do when you sell it to your customers. > >> If you just want to >> modify and and _not_ share it at all, that's fine. > > That is only when you keep it to yourself, my understanding of GPL is that as > soon as you sell it you are not allowed to deny your customers access to your > (modified) sources.Exactly. Once you "redistribute it" (for whatever reason and/or "consideration")
