"Yes, yes, yes, correct - they would have to make it available, correct - they cannot close-source any subset or superset, yes it violates GPL. I think I answered in order :)"

"There is alot of correct and incorrect information in this thread. First: DO-254 = Hardware DO-178C = Software I can speak for the software side of things from experience, hardware is not my expertise. To clarify some points: Certification Both…"

"I agree that making money based solely on the software would not be kosher. My thought was questioning what would happen when the user that went through the certification process shared the certified code. If that certification didn't transfer…"

"No, it's not fair and sometimes really pisses off the Open Source community.  Which is why the Acme UAV company would be very wise to return new code to the community following the open source practice. But, it's going to cost a lot…"

"Chris, but this is a VERY grey area. IMO, that scenario should not be allowed.  As I see it, the Ardupilot/copter code is worth somewhere upwards of $1,000,000.  I dunno, maybe that's over the top but, I look at it as 10-20,000 at…"

"This has been a really educational experience for me. Thanks to Stephen and Chris A. for coming in and setting the record straight. So the way I understand this now, is that anyone can come in and grab the code, run it through the certification…"

"As I said before, and Chris Anderson could comment on this, Open Source is a cooperative community and does not have force of law. So, yes, it's against the rules, but only community pressure can force cooperation. "

"The thing is might become a requirement, not optional to have DO or STANAG systems. It will certainly knock the Chinese APs for six. Thankfully in Europe they have not gone for it yet, but they don't have the major sUAS defence manufacturer…"

"Interesting that RedHat was mentioned as an example.  RedHat supports and encourages open source community, but to defend their users, they do patent any code RedHat generates.  (See Patent Promise). But, that's getting off topic.…"

"If somebody did that, certified a version of the Arducopter for example, wouldn't that meant that we would all benefit from the certification?  We could all use that certified code? Or, if they took a version of the code, changed…"

"That's interesting. What happens to any modifications the user makes? Are those users compelled to release their source code as well, or are they allowed to keep any IP they create using it proprietary? That's something I'm not up to…"

"Interesting discussion; thanks for starting it.  The way we work on the software side (ArduCopter, ArduPlane, ArduRover, Mission Planner, etc) is like Linux. Volunteer developers write code and release it on the Internet for free,…"

"If, in the remotest possibility, an aircraft running the certified version of Arducopter crashes and injures or kills someone, would Chris or 3DR be ready to defend the software?  I kind of doubt it.   What's the upside in…"

"But that's not exactly true, is it? We have specific devs that have the keys to the trunk, an online approve or reject new code. We also have the backing of Chris Anderson and 3DR. Linux runs the whole damned internet. We couldn't sit…"

"DO-178C locks the software at an approved level.  Once approved, NO changes are allowed without a complete re-certification.  There also has to be a responsible party, or more specifically, the party responsible for the software version…"

"Why not?"