> I thought that under the terms of the GPL it was not legal to charge for
> the code under that license but legal to charge for the cost of
> distributing it or something along those lines (not sure what it says
> about "unreasonable" distribution charges though)

It is legal to charge for the product itself.

Once a customer has the product, the company must offer the source for a=20
reasonable fee. They offer the source on their website for free, so the=20
fact that they *also* offer it in some other way for $100 is IMO not a=20
violation. And when one person a year asks for the sources this way $100=20
might even be considered a reasonable amount.

> I'm sure they have covered themselves legally, but legal doesn't always
> equal ethical - the folk discussing it on the thread seem to think it
> was maybe a bit "cheeky", though as I said, I would have to look more
> closely to come to any conclusion.

It would be cheeky if they hid or obfusciated the source, but apparently=20
they did not. The funny thing (if there is any) is that as yet there=20
seems to be no user's website that offers the 'jailbroken' version for=20
free. maybe that indicates a general lack of interest in PIC32 in the=20
hobby/low-cost community?

--=20

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.