On 3/17/06, Gilboa Davara <gilboad@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > What alternative are you offering to power our Xgl/Bling/what-ever > desktops? (Let alone running Quake4 at 1600x1200...) Doesn't the intel graphics sets now provide enough open support for bling? > > Other then that, I'm being employed write a certain kernel level > services that are to be deployed on RHEL. > Due to specific reasons I cannot disclose (and as a matter of law) my > company cannot release the code under GPL (though I might get a > permission to release small unrelated parts of it). If indeed you > represent the official Linux-kernel-dev-line, my employer should halt > all Linux development and switch to BSD/Solaris/what-ever, right? I think your employer should abide by the licensing conditions on any 3rd party source code with which your employer's services will need to utilize in order to build a functional service. If you need to look at the kernel sourcecode for what you are building then you will need to abide by the GPL. If you or your employer are confused by the licensing terms embodied in the GPL are, I would also suggest your employer take the time to run the GPL past their legal cousel to make sure your employer knows exactly what is expected to comply and what the risks of non-compliance are. As your employer should be doing for any 3rd party sourcecode which you license for use. If your employer is to provide the work under the GPL, it is in your employer's best interest to have informed legal counsel make an informed legal judgement as to the matter. -jef -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list