servies;538444 Wrote:
I never heard Red Hat or Suse complaining... or Logitech...
Do you think there was a reason why Logitech selected to use BSD for
the player software instead of the GPL license as they've always used
on the server ?
I'm not really against GPL but I can understand why
erland;538547 Wrote:
Do you think there was a reason why Logitech selected to use BSD for the
player software instead of the GPL license as they've always used on the
server ?
No clue: for the owner, I think GPL is better (it means no one can take
the code, make it work on their own hardware
if you want to tightly integrate your already existing code with
something released under GPL you will have to release the source for
your code also under GPL even though it was originally released under
some other license.
That's only true if you want to distribute it to other people,
servies;538444 Wrote:
Not quite right, when you distribute the binaries compiled from the
code, everybody can ask for the code/modifications and use that again.
How do you think CentOS creates its distribution. It's an exact copy of
Red Hat Enterprise, recompiled from the sources.
Really,
erland;538588 Wrote:
Really, where does it say that ?
As far as I know you are only obligated to give the source to anyone
that you have given/sold the binaries to. Of course, you can't forbid
them to redistribute it to someone else but if you haven't got the
binaries no one is forced to
bluegaspode;537449 Wrote:
If companies avoid the GPL they do exactly that (or look for software
distributed under another license).
Or (and this happens more often than you would expect) they try to
obscure their use of it or try to fight the GPL... In the end they
fail...
So you don't
servies;537951 Wrote:
Or (and this happens more often than you would expect) they try to
obscure their use of it or try to fight the GPL... In the end they
fail...
Indeed, I don't.
GPL is simple: if you want to take something from the community and
distribute the result, you have to give
servies wrote:
pfarrell;537322 Wrote:
I don't see it as important, but I can understand why a company would
want to stay as far away from the GPL virus license as possible.
To such a company I would say: Start writing your own os/whatever and
stop profiting from the -free- work of others
pski;537289 Wrote:
Which distro?
Touch, Radio, and Controller run 'Logitech SqueezeOS'
(http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/SqueezeOS).
--
peterw
http://www.tux.org/~peterw/
Free plugins: 'AllQuiet'
(http://www.tux.org/~peterw/slim/AllQuiet.html) 'Auto Dim/AutoDisplay'
aubuti;537293 Wrote:
I've never been entirely clear on the nomenclature, but I think it's
SqueezeOS. According to the wiki
(http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/SqueezeOS) that's the distro
used on the SBC. Obviously the exact contents of the SBC and Touch
aren't the same, but I'd guess
From the Touch
# cat /proc/version
Linux version 2.6.26.8-rt16-332-g5849bfa (parabu...@vdc01b01centos02)
(gcc version 4.4.1 (Sourcery G++ Lite 2009q3-67) ) #1 PREEMPT RT Thu
Feb 18 19:20:30 MST 2010
Not sure if this is what you are looking for but will give you an
insight into what the OS is
11 matches
Mail list logo
