Review of GPL code requirements text

[Florian Weimer]

* Ard van Breemen:

> If you are not able/allowed to change the binary (because the box
> isn't yours, or the box is technically not enhancable, like in
> microwaves), then you don't actually need the source code, except
> for pure interest.

The FSF (or rather, RMS) has argued along the same lines in the past.
Source code for software running on embedded devices was not deemed an
important issue.  I still think this is wrong, and that anecdote about
the famous printer with its proprietary software is a good example why
embedded systems do matter.

On the other hand, most of the publicly-known GPL litigation targeted
embedded devices so far.

> You are usually not allowed to modify software on a rented-box
> (unless the purpose of renting is running your software), and
> hence do not need the source.

I could port the software to run on a different piece of hardware.

> If I am incorrect then I suspect the GPL doesn't allow renting of
> boxes to thirdparties without allowing to change the software on
> those boxes that still are not yours.

I believe the question of making changes to a CPE, and the way the
software it runs is licensed are separate.