On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> [Ooh, another CMU person. Hi.]
Is CMU in a black list ? Never mind ....
>
> Disclaimer: this is not legal advice, and I do not speak for my
> employer. I'm also not responsible for policies, so please don't vent
> at me or I'll stop trying to be helpful.
as u wish
>
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:58:23AM +0000, Nilmoni Deb wrote:
> >
> > This is about Monta Vista Software, a company that develops software for
> > embedded platforms, based on the Linux kernel and (possibly) other GPL
> > software.
> >
> > In its official FAQ page, http://www.mvista.com/products/faq.html#q9 , it
> > says:
> >
> > "A: The GNU General Public License (GPL) is very specific about the
> > obligations imposed on developers leveraging Open Source. If you
> > deploy/redistribute program binaries derived from source code licensed
> > under the GPL, you must
> >
> >
> > Supply the source code to derived GPL code or Make an offer (good for 3
> > years) to supply the source code
> >
> > Retain all licensing / header information, copyright notices, etc. in
> > those sources
> >
> > Redistribute the text of the GPL with the binaries and/or source code
> >
> > Note that your obligation is strictly to the recipients of binaries
> > (i.e., your customers). You have no responsibility to the "community" at
> > large."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 .
>
> I suggest you read clause 3b again:
> 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object
> code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do
> one of the following:
> * b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third
> party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution,
> a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed
> under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
> interchange; or,
>
> If you don't distribute a binary to someone, then you are under no
> obligation to distribute source to them. The GPL's always worked that
> way. One can't restrict what one's customers do with the source, but
> that doesn't oblige one to give it away.
Actually, my question has been answered and the answer is: if the vendor
complies with 3a, then the vendor does not have to worry about 3b anymore.
> > In addition:
> >
> > 1. There is no linux kernel source in ftp://ftp.mvista.com/
>
> Nor any reason it should be there.
>
> > 2. The download page http://www.mvista.com/previewkit/index.html does not
> > claim to offer any source code at all.
>
> I'm told that the preview kits do include kernel source, although I
> haven't checked for myself in a couple of months.
>
> --
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 07 2003 - 22:00:18 EST