> In reality, Copyleft is nothing more than a moral and ethical guideline that
> a redistributor *chooses* to follow (or not follow). For commeralized Linux
Actually folks get sued for not following copyrights. I've been talking to
someone recently who plans to solve the KDE gpl/nongpl issue by issuing
cease and desist orders to KDE.
Vendors also take it seriously. Some of them anyway
> might be LGPL violations. While it is possible to produce a statically
> linked Linux binary which does not use Glibc (by using a different
> programming language or a third party Libc), these statically linked binary
> share a fairly large number of strings and symbols in common with Glibc.
I'd be very suprised if any of these are using a non GNU libc.
> unlikely. But, so what? Do we attack these companies just like Abit and
> LinuxOne? Heck, Knox Software Corp won Linux World 1999 Editors' Choice
It produces results. The Gentus affair seem,s to be changing tune since
two large vendors threatend to have their legal counsel look at it
> boycott it? These are not bad companies or bad people, they are just
> following the Linux Community standard waving some LGPL and GPL requests!
I dont think thats true. They are either miss informed or intentionally
breaking licenses. In the latter case they are as low as the people who
mass pirate music
> Oh well... here is the list:
Thank you. I will raise this list internally.
> should be noted in the archives of Linux kernel development.
The kernel list isnt a licensing list. gnu.misc.discuss is far more
appropriate and likely to reach the people who own the rights to some of
the stuff like glibc
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 23 2000 - 21:00:27 EST