Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S267267AbTBIOpk>; Sun, 9 Feb 2003 09:45:40 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S267270AbTBIOpk>; Sun, 9 Feb 2003 09:45:40 -0500
Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:14351 "EHLO
	gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S267267AbTBIOpj>; Sun, 9 Feb 2003 09:45:39 -0500
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 09:52:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
To: Nilmoni Deb <ndeb@ece.cmu.edu>
cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Monta Vista software license terms
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.96L.1030206183847.7889L-100000@frodo.ece.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.1030209094531.23277A-100000@gatekeeper.tmr.com>
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: 2291
Lines: 54

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.

> > 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.

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.

-- 
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/