lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Monta Vista software license terms


On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 02:02:38PM -0500, Nilmoni Deb wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> We don't deal with 3(b), actually. All our binary distributions
> include source, a la 3(a).

Good to know that.

> It's generally considered polite to discuss your concerns with whoever
> you're concerned with, instead of attempting to report them and rouse
> public reaction, you know.

This is not really about anybody's feelings or politeness. Nothing
personal is involved here. I reported the matter here because I wanted to
clarify certain claims made by certain vendor. Since it involves the
linux kernel, why not ask the folks at the kernel list itself ?
And contacting the vendor may not get me an unbiased opinion.
I am glad that one major issue has been clarified. As for rousing
"public reaction", the "public" is free is get aroused (or not aroused)
and that should not deter people from bringing issues to the forefront.

thanks
- Nil

>
> --
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
>


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.143 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site