On Friday 16 March 2007 18:17, Ray Henry wrote: > I suggest that we let Paul do the audit and we keep working on > abilities.
Buck. Passing ? On Friday 16 March 2007 18:44, Matthew Glenn Shaver wrote: > > src/hal/drivers/pluto_servo_firmware/pluto_servo.qsf > GPL - Header at the top of the file. Well, I guess the Altera lawyers could have a field day with that... CVS history says one thing for the original commit, six months later, something else. On Friday 16 March 2007 19:19, Chris Radek wrote: > It's clear that opinions about this vary. Putting non-Free code into > our source tree would be a departure from current practice and would > require the board of directors to discuss and vote on it. If the time > comes, we'll have that vote. Um.. NO. The board had a clear mandate to oversee moves towards GPL. To change on a whim without consultation with ALL previous contributors is wrong. Segregating non-compliant code in a separate module and distributed with clear warnings would be a reasonable compromise. > Until then, I think, it's not very > interesting to argue about it, and I agree with Ray that since Paul is > doing this audit work for us, So once again you seek to abdicate your responsibilities. Since you guys decided to run a fork outside of Sourceforge, without discussion or consultation, anyone choosing not to follow gets branded an "ex developer". No. Do your own damned audits and stop shirking your obligations as a "board member". On Friday 16 March 2007 20:05, Gene Heskett wrote: > Does it not bother you that whomever does own the copyrights on the files > Paul listed, could decide to issue a C&D letter based on a percieved > copyright violation? Exactly Gene, and with the US legal system being what it is, even if damages are not sought, the legal bills could be crippling. > Ditto if somehow a patent gets involved. Either way, its conceivable that > someone could be awarded outlandish damages against a project that > basicly has no funds from sales to pay them. Thankfully, software patents are not enforceable over here, but copyrights may well be. On Friday 16 March 2007 23:43, Steve Stallings wrote: > > And from Section 1 of the Xilinx ISE EULA: > > (c) Restriction. No right is granted hereunder to use > > the Software to program or develop designs for non-XILINX devices. > > > > Which imposes conflicting restrictions on any firmware blobs > > generated from GPL HDL sources. > There are not any non-Xilinx devices that can utilize the "firmware > blobs" generated by the Xilinx ISE from the GPL HDL sources, so this > is meaningless. So Joe develops & tests on a Hollybush board using ISE, perhaps unwittingly incorporating some Xilinx IP, and then Bob uses the same files to compile for an Altera Cyclone chip (with perhaps a small change to one file) - Perhaps using GHDL to synthesise the design - Far from being "meaningless", it opens up a whole new minefield. A warning notice for the end user advising that there may be a conflict of interest would be prudent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
