Re: Monta Vista software license terms

[Nilmoni Deb]

On Sun, 9 Feb 2003, Bill Davidsen wrote:

> 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.

Ur gripe is about why I posted it in lkml and I have answered that. U can
argue that I could _also_ have posted it in other forums but thats up to
me. U can't deny that it _is_ about the kernel (but not the kernel alone).
Whether it is about other GPL software as well is irrelevant beccause I
never claimed its about the kernel alone.

> 
> > > 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.

U r beating about the same bush as usual. My question _does_ apply to
other GPL software too but thats irrelevant. Because the case I
highlighted is about the kernel. Remember that the GPL also says something
about the copyright holder of the _particular_ software (which is not the
FSF for sure in case of the kernel). So the idea of discussing it in lkml
is a good idea.

> 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.

I don't give a damn what u consider as "failed" or "succeeded" because my
questions were answered by more than one people here and I am happy that
the issue has been resolved. So take ur whining elsewhere.

> 
> -- 
> bill davidsen <[e-mail]>
>   CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
> Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.
> 
>