On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Patrick Shirkey <pshirkey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
They have no legal obligation to anyone except their customers. How does it appear (and more importantly how does it help) if an essentially random 3rd party weighs in? That's a genuine non-rhetorical question
There's no way to know, but its entirely possible that there isn't a single modified line of any GPL'ed code anywhere in their system. They could be running an entirely stock version of everything, and be under zero obligation to do anything except include a small note somewhere to customers that if they really want to download the source code to glibc, the kernel etc, then look in the following places. This is precisely what Apple does with Darwin, which includes quite a number of GPL'ed components.
Please explain why it would be a negative thing for the Consortium to take
on such a role?
Would you prefer for random people with no specific affiliation to do the
job or would you prefer for it to not be done at all?
They have no legal obligation to anyone except their customers. How does it appear (and more importantly how does it help) if an essentially random 3rd party weighs in? That's a genuine non-rhetorical question
There's no way to know, but its entirely possible that there isn't a single modified line of any GPL'ed code anywhere in their system. They could be running an entirely stock version of everything, and be under zero obligation to do anything except include a small note somewhere to customers that if they really want to download the source code to glibc, the kernel etc, then look in the following places. This is precisely what Apple does with Darwin, which includes quite a number of GPL'ed components.
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
