Hi!
> > I have seen a device by CorAccess which apparently uses Linux and didn't
> > find
> > anything that would suggest it complies to GPL, though I had access to the
> > complete shipping package. Does anyone know about known cause of violation
> > by
> > this company or should I investigate
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:07 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 14:57 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 08:49 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:30 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > As long as they do not
Steven Rostedt writes:
> On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 14:57 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 08:49 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:30 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > As long as they do not statically link against LGPL (or GPL) code
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 14:57 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 08:49 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:30 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > As long as they do not statically link against LGPL (or GPL) code and as
> > > long as they do not
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 08:49 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:30 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>
> >
> > As long as they do not statically link against LGPL (or GPL) code and as
> > long as they do not link dynamically agaist GPL code. And there are
> > probably more
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:30 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>
> As long as they do not statically link against LGPL (or GPL) code and as
> long as they do not link dynamically agaist GPL code. And there are
> probably more rules .
>
Actually, I believe that the LGPL allows for static
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 17:37 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
> > No. Accompany it with a written offer to __provide__ the source
> > code for any GPL stuff they used (like the kernel or drivers).
> > Anything at the application-level is NOT covered by the GPL.
That
On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 17:37 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
No. Accompany it with a written offer to __provide__ the source
code for any GPL stuff they used (like the kernel or drivers).
Anything at the application-level is NOT covered by the GPL.
That depends on
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:30 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
As long as they do not statically link against LGPL (or GPL) code and as
long as they do not link dynamically agaist GPL code. And there are
probably more rules .
Actually, I believe that the LGPL allows for static linking as
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 08:49 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:30 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
As long as they do not statically link against LGPL (or GPL) code and as
long as they do not link dynamically agaist GPL code. And there are
probably more rules .
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 14:57 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 08:49 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:30 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
As long as they do not statically link against LGPL (or GPL) code and as
long as they do not link
Steven Rostedt writes:
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 14:57 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 08:49 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:30 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
As long as they do not statically link against LGPL (or GPL) code and as
long as
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:07 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 14:57 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 08:49 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 09:30 +0200, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
As long as they do not statically link against
Hi!
I have seen a device by CorAccess which apparently uses Linux and didn't
find
anything that would suggest it complies to GPL, though I had access to the
complete shipping package. Does anyone know about known cause of violation
by
this company or should I investigate further?
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Chris Friesen wrote:
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
No. Accompany it with a written offer to __provide__ the source
code for any GPL stuff they used (like the kernel or drivers).
Anything at the application-level is NOT covered by the GPL.
They do not have to give away their
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
No. Accompany it with a written offer to __provide__ the source
code for any GPL stuff they used (like the kernel or drivers).
Anything at the application-level is NOT covered by the GPL.
They do not have to give away their trade-secrets.
GPL'd applications would still be
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Chris Friesen wrote:
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
Violation? They proudly reply in their article in
http://www.linuxdevices.com
that they use Linux, that they embedded a version
of Red Hat, etc.
It's likely that they didn't modify anything in the kernel and
just used some
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
Violation? They proudly reply in their article in
http://www.linuxdevices.com
that they use Linux, that they embedded a version
of Red Hat, etc.
It's likely that they didn't modify anything in the kernel and
just used some stripped-down C-libraries to make everything
Violation? They proudly reply in their article in
http://www.linuxdevices.com
that they use Linux, that they embedded a version
of Red Hat, etc.
It's likely that they didn't modify anything in the kernel and
just used some stripped-down C-libraries to make everything fit.
On Tue, 19 Apr
Charles Cazabon wrote:
Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well what is the case if you use unmodified GPL code, do you still have
to provide sources to the end user if you give them binaries?
Yes, or a written offer to provide sources, plus a copy of the GPL. It's all
spelled out
Lennart Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well what is the case if you use unmodified GPL code, do you still have
> to provide sources to the end user if you give them binaries?
Yes, or a written offer to provide sources, plus a copy of the GPL. It's all
spelled out pretty clearly in the
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 05:57:43PM +, Karel Kulhavy wrote:
> I have seen a device by CorAccess which apparently uses Linux and didn't find
> anything that would suggest it complies to GPL, though I had access to the
> complete shipping package. Does anyone know about known cause of violation
Hello
I have seen a device by CorAccess which apparently uses Linux and didn't find
anything that would suggest it complies to GPL, though I had access to the
complete shipping package. Does anyone know about known cause of violation by
this company or should I investigate further?
CL<
-
To
Hello
I have seen a device by CorAccess which apparently uses Linux and didn't find
anything that would suggest it complies to GPL, though I had access to the
complete shipping package. Does anyone know about known cause of violation by
this company or should I investigate further?
CL
-
To
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 05:57:43PM +, Karel Kulhavy wrote:
I have seen a device by CorAccess which apparently uses Linux and didn't find
anything that would suggest it complies to GPL, though I had access to the
complete shipping package. Does anyone know about known cause of violation by
Lennart Sorensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well what is the case if you use unmodified GPL code, do you still have
to provide sources to the end user if you give them binaries?
Yes, or a written offer to provide sources, plus a copy of the GPL. It's all
spelled out pretty clearly in the GPL
Charles Cazabon wrote:
Lennart Sorensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well what is the case if you use unmodified GPL code, do you still have
to provide sources to the end user if you give them binaries?
Yes, or a written offer to provide sources, plus a copy of the GPL. It's all
spelled out pretty
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
Violation? They proudly reply in their article in
http://www.linuxdevices.com
that they use Linux, that they embedded a version
of Red Hat, etc.
It's likely that they didn't modify anything in the kernel and
just used some stripped-down C-libraries to make everything
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Chris Friesen wrote:
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
Violation? They proudly reply in their article in
http://www.linuxdevices.com
that they use Linux, that they embedded a version
of Red Hat, etc.
It's likely that they didn't modify anything in the kernel and
just used some
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
No. Accompany it with a written offer to __provide__ the source
code for any GPL stuff they used (like the kernel or drivers).
Anything at the application-level is NOT covered by the GPL.
They do not have to give away their trade-secrets.
GPL'd applications would still be
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, Chris Friesen wrote:
Richard B. Johnson wrote:
No. Accompany it with a written offer to __provide__ the source
code for any GPL stuff they used (like the kernel or drivers).
Anything at the application-level is NOT covered by the GPL.
They do not have to give away their
31 matches
Mail list logo
