begin quoting Tracy R Reed as of Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 02:34:23PM -0700: > Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > >Correct. Every VLSI design group I know of has a blanket ban on using > >anything GPL since it might later cause source code for a design tool to > >have to be released. > > This is rather scary. Shouldn't you be checking the license of any code > you use to see if you are allowed to use it, GPL or not?
I should think that in general, errors of this sort with non-GPL'd code is solvable by the application of money. Errors with GPL'd code are solvable only by pouring the lifeblood of the company on to the ground. > If you say you > are worried about accidentally including GPL'd code doesn't that imply > that you are not keeping track of what code is licensed how and could > also accidentally use some other code which you do not have an > acceptable license for? Most of those products make it difficult to acquire source code that could be "accidently" incorporated into the source base. The process of acquisition vets the license; GPL software only requires a download. > Generally the GPL folks just say stop using our > code or open your code. Companies using only a little GPL code generally > just remove the GPL code. As far as I know nobody has ever been forced > to open their code over an issue like this. I know of at least one company that killed a product when threated by GPL Nazis 'cuz their product wrote configuration files for a GPL'd project. > Companies using the whole of > Linux in their embedded device end up opening the whole thing or > changing OS's but in such an extreme case they get what they deserve. It's that sort of attitude, I think, that will keep Linux from ever becoming truly "mainstream". Who wants to deal with a vendor who so easily wishes ill on a customer 'cuz it's deserved? -- _ |\_ \| -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
