On Thursday 06 August 2009 20:13:46 Vladimir Pantelic wrote: > Griffis, Brad wrote: > > Thank you for your reply. Good question. Yes, it's a gcc compiler so it > > definitely would/should be possible to remove the licensing. It uses > > FLEXnet licensing so it's probably tougher than some simple time-bomb > > somewhere. > > > > My hope was to avoid cat and mouse games with Montavista. For example, > > there is a "demo version" of the compiler (without the FLEXnet licensing) > > that all customers can get for free. I wasn't sure if any improvements > > were in the real compiler though. Other thoughts I had were potentially > > dropping use of the Montavista toolchain altogether and using > > CodeSourcery instead. Would that create other problems? > > there is no cat and mouse game to be played, MV has to release source under > the GPL and I doubt they would like to have the flexlm part there visible > for all to see, so they better release one without...
Except that they can't. They released a binary including both GPL code and FLEXLM code. They now need to provide source code for both. > This is GPL violation, so simple! Agreed. You should first discuss the problem privately with them. If all else fails, http://gpl-violations.org/ Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
