Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sun, 9 Feb 2003 11:50:01 -0500 (EST) | From | Nilmoni Deb <> | Subject | Re: Monta Vista software license terms |
| |
On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Nilmoni Deb wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Bill Davidsen wrote: > > > > But it is not about the Linux kernel. It is purely about interpretation of > > > the GPL, which would be far better addressed in other forums dealing with > > > either FSF, GPL, or legal issues. > > > > It is about the linux kernel as the vendor distributes its customized > > linux kernel. And it is also about GPL licensing. And this forum is a good > > choice since many developers of the kernel have indirectly or directly > > interacted with the vendor before (a few are even employees). > > It is no more about the kernel than a question about liability is about > auto racing just because your particular interest is in cars. The GPL > applies to many kinds of software, and your question is totally general.
Ur gripe is about why I posted it in lkml and I have answered that. U can argue that I could _also_ have posted it in other forums but thats up to me. U can't deny that it _is_ about the kernel (but not the kernel alone). Whether it is about other GPL software as well is irrelevant beccause I never claimed its about the kernel alone.
> > > > This whole thing is basically one person trying to discredit a company for > > > not doing things the GPL doesn't require. > > > > Thats a very stupid comment to make. My first post says: > > > > "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 ? Seems like a GPL violation of clause 3b in > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html ." > > > > It clearly asks a question about whether it is a violation or is not, as > > regards a specific clause of the license. Next time please read the post > > carefully before making comments. > > > > > If they distributed source they > > > satisfied their responsibilities, and they have none to non-customers. > > Yes, it clearly asks a question about the GPL in general, since it applies > equally to all covered software. All the protesting on earth will not > change the point, you are asking a license question which is not kernel > specific.
U r beating about the same bush as usual. My question _does_ apply to other GPL software too but thats irrelevant. Because the case I highlighted is about the kernel. Remember that the GPL also says something about the copyright holder of the _particular_ software (which is not the FSF for sure in case of the kernel). So the idea of discussing it in lkml is a good idea.
> I read the post carefully, you are a non-customer who didn't get what he > wanted for free and tried to make your complaint sound like a legitimate > question. You faild.
I don't give a damn what u consider as "failed" or "succeeded" because my questions were answered by more than one people here and I am happy that the issue has been resolved. So take ur whining elsewhere.
> > -- > bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> > CTO, TMR Associates, Inc > Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. > >
- 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |