Licence text and fabs
Posted Oct 4, 2006 14:16 UTC (Wed) by mingo
In reply to: Licence text and fabs
Parent article: Busy busy busybox
The GPL even in it's v2 form controls more than the code itself. For example you can not claim you can only provide source on gold plated media available at extorsionate price (that is unless you can prove you have to use gold-plated media yourself).
that is different. I'm not talking about common-sense definitions about how the "payment" for our creative works (which payment is mostly in the form of providing source code) happens.
The thing i'm talking about here is that the GPLv3 includes another work (the key) which is independent of our GPL-ed works, in the definition of Source Code, which source code we purport to license!
(and then later on the GPLv3 uses this "defining of other people's creative works into our license's Source Code" act as a tool to prevent the hardware from being redistributed, unless the newly-defined "source code" (which now includes another person's independent creative work!) is provided too.)
to post comments)