Lindows - Where's the Source?

bbh writes: "NewsForge has an article about the Free Software Foundation asking the makers of LindowsOS a simple question, 'Where's the Source?' Lindows CEO Michael Robertson has an interesting take on what the GPL means."

Comments

He's right

[PhysicsGenius]

I use the GPL for all my software from simple utilities to invert a construction matrix all the way up the the Perl program that I wrote that controls our linear accelerator--and I always release the source because that way everyone who has a linac can fix bugs for me.

However, Lindows is under no obligation to release the source. They only have to do that if a) they are selling the binaries and b) someone requests it. And of course, if somebody does they have to release both the source of those binaries as well as the source of any tools that helped created those binaries. That's why it's always a good idea to use gcc and emacs for your OS projects.

What's the big deal?

[aozilla]

Really, sometimes the FSF can be as bad as the BSA...

Re:I don't understand the evasion

[Royster]

Maybe it's because I just woke up, maybe it's cause I missed something in the article, but it seems a simple thing for him to say, "Oh, we didn't include the source due to x y z."

He did. They didn't include the source becuase they haven't released the product to the public.

The GPL distinguishes between modifications published (for which source is required) and modifications for internal use (for which source is not rewuired). Testing is usually an internal use.

Beta testing is a grey area, is it a public distribution or is it internal? But it seems to me a resonable interpretation.