Am Mi, den 19.11.2003 schrieb Don Armstrong um 22:25: > On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Oliver Kurth wrote: > > Sigh. So if Atmel says these files are no longer GPL'ed, but are just > > freely distributable, it could at least go to non-free? > > Sounds ridiculous. (Law is too complicated to me, so I stick to > > programming ;-) ) > Thats part and parcel of the GPL... if the company doesn't include the > prefered form for modification, no one else can distribute it.
Well, doesn't Atmel promise by distributing the .hex files under the GPL to either "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code" or "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code". So I guess we should just get a lawyer to make Atmel hand out the source code :-) Ok, I guess people that are more into law will tell me that this does not really work, and even if it would it would not be wise to do, since this won't make companies use the GPL twice... nomeata -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner e-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Homepage: http://www.joachim-breitner.de JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C | ICQ#: 74513189 Geekcode: GCS/IT/S d-- s++:- a--- C++ UL+++ P+++ !E W+++ N-- !W O? M?>+ V? PS++ PE PGP++ t? 5? X- R+ tv- b++ DI+ D+ G e+>* h! z? Bitte senden Sie mir keine Word- oder PowerPoint-Anhänge. Siehe http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.de.html
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
