Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 5 Feb 2003 14:02:38 -0500 (EST) | From | Nilmoni Deb <> | Subject | Re: Monta Vista software license terms |
| |
On 5 Feb 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 11:58, Nilmoni Deb wrote: > > Note that your obligation is strictly to the recipients of binaries > > (i.e., your customers). You have no responsibility to the "community" at > > large." > > This is correct. Its actually very important. A lot of GPL software is > created by a small company for another. It would be completely unfair > for that small company to be expected to ship stuff to everyone. Their > customer may choose to but then they must distribute sources and so in > turn.
While one issue stands resolved (that a vendor complying with clause 3a of GPL 2.0 does not have to comply with 3b), the GPL may have been misprepresented by MontaVista, as per the opinion of a FSF member (Dave Turner via RT <license-violation@fsf.org>):
-------- EXCERPT STARTS ---------
> Note that your obligation is strictly to the recipients of binaries > (i.e., your customers). You have no responsibility to the "community" at > large." > > > Its the last sentence that is of concern. Does this mean no 3rd > party (who is not a customer) can get the GPL source code part of their > products ?
Actually, they're wrong -- if they choose (3)(b), their offer must be open to all third parties. And they're wrong about who their "obligation" is to -- legally speaking, their license comes from the copyright holder.
-------- EXCERPT ENDS ---------
> Montavista feed a fair bit of stuff back into the kernel, especially at > the mips end of the universe.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |