Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Tim Bird wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
Er, is that GPL or LGPL code that you're modifying? If so, you *have* to
push those code changes out (make them available to others), whether you
think people will be interested or not!
umm, not really. only if (1) he gives a binary to someone and (2)
they ask him for the source. if he doesnt distribute or no one asks,
he doesnt have to do squat.
This is closer to correct, but missing some important details.
Start the GPL compliance tutorial/flameware in 3, 2, 1...
yeah, i really dont think licensing things belong here. sorry for following up.
how about this policy: if you want to make a statement, go pay a
lawyer. but that statement still shouldnt be made here ;).
-mike
Sorry, I didn't mean to provoke a GPL flame war. The point I was trying
to make (badly as it turns out) is that if a company really wants to see
its changes taken upstream, it could simply publish the work on its
website and let each relevant community know that it's there. A diff of
the changes would be ideal. This is above and beyond what they have to
do under GPL terms of course. There's no need for a company to filter
out changes that it thinks others won't be interested in.
--
James Chapman
Katalix Systems Ltd
http://www.katalix.com
Catalysts for your Embedded Linux software development
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
