Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S267562AbTBFXxd>; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:53:33 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S267554AbTBFXxd>; Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:53:33 -0500
Received: from ECE.CMU.EDU ([128.2.136.200]:21184 "EHLO ece.cmu.edu")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S267361AbTBFXxb>;
	Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:53:31 -0500
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:59:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Nilmoni Deb <ndeb@ece.cmu.edu>
To: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Monta Vista software license terms
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1030206180039.11713C-100000@gatekeeper.tmr.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96L.1030206183847.7889L-100000@frodo.ece.cmu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2347
Lines: 54


On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Bill Davidsen wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Nilmoni Deb wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 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).

> 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.

That point was settled long ago as is obvious from the thread. Making the
same point repeatedly is just a waste of time.

> 
> -- 
> 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/