May I suggest you split the discussion if you continue about licensing, so we can keep a clear topic on Daniel's come back ?
Thanks Etaoin Shrdlu a écrit : > On Monday 14 January 2008, James wrote: > >>> Absolutely not -- For BSD licensing please use BSD. I see no reason >>> why everything Gentoo related can't be GPL v2 -- after all, the >>> kernel certainly is. >> It runs a little deeper than this, particularly when you look at how >> is doing what. For example >> >> There are Dozens of corporations willing to sell 'embedded linux' to >> you. Yet the core of their offering is the same linux you used (with >> some tweaks at the kernel, HAL and a few other places). How does Monta >> Vista get to sell embedded linux without being sued? > > The GPL does allow to sell your product (as opposite to giving it away > for free). Why should Montavista be sued if they respect the GPL? As > long as they distribute the source code with their products (which > admittedly I don't know), they are fine. Just because the sources are > not downloadable from their site, does not mean that they should be > sued. > >> I really don't think this is the place to discuss licensing but the >> BSD vs GPLv(2/3) is a hugely complicated issue. Lots of small >> companies are being quietly sued for building products related to >> embedded linux. But, none of the large corporations that do the same >> or worse are being sued....? > > It seems to me that the difference is not between small or big companies, > but rather between those who obey the GPL and those who do not. > Recently, someone noticed that ASUS (not exactly a small company) had not > published the full sources for their eee pc OS on their site; they were > notified, and subsequently they added that code. Read the full story: > > http://cliffhacks.blogspot.com/2007/11/asus-eeepc-first-impressions-and-gpl.html > http://cliffhacks.blogspot.com/2007/11/asus-eeepc-some-sources-posted.html > > Other companies have been sued or notified, but not just because they > were big or small, but because they failed to obey the GPL (xterasys, > monsoon, fortinet, d-link...you can find tons of cases just by googling > a bit), someone even admitted their faults, > In some cases, the companies were declared guilty. > >> Again you miss the point. If some small company builds a product, they >> are not going to want to stray very far from the linux kernel tree. >> The most they do is write a device driver. If they have some real >> 'magic' you just put a second sub $1 micro processor on the circuit >> board and locate your "magic" therein. It's as easy as eating pie. >> Publish your gpl code on the big micro and hide your magic in a small >> proccessor/DSP/FPGA/PAL. There are many other schemes to get around >> GPL, including writing your own boot loader. (not as difficult as it >> sounds). >> >> What the GPLv3 is doing is effectively keeping the little guys from >> building products ~100% based on linux and open source. They have not >> stopped a single well funded company (or an entire country like China) >> from using linux and open source as they choose. > > Why should they have been stopped? > >> This is a very huge reason for the current state of affairs for failed >> technology companies (particularly in the USA), at the present time. >> The Linux Journal has a big campaign to locate "linux inside" of >> products, basically asking folks to 'rat out' companies using linux to >> make a buck. <insert your own conspiracy theory here> > > Making money, even lots of money, with linux is not prohibited. What is > wrong is when someone does not obey the GPL, and that's what LJ wants to > do: to discover companies that try to benefit from the work of the linux > community without giving anything back (I think you are referring to > the "linux incognito" initiative here). > >> You still believe gplv3 is a good thing? I think *GPLv3* is the spawn >> of Satan, and that's the reason most of the kernel devs did not go for >> that *horse hockey*! >> >>> That being said, it would be fantastic if the Gentoo Foundation >>> found ways to make money :) >> It will never happen as longs as "myths" such as the ones you espouse >> reign supreme, IMHO. The reason that Gentoo and all of those souls >> that develop and support it is floundering on near financial failure, >> is the tenants (goals) that others have brain washed onto the masses, >> IMHO. >> >> The very best way (IMHO) to promote democracy and freedom is for >> the people to have a way to make money as entrepreneurs and small >> business people. Keeping Linux bottled up, via the GPL is just >> plain nuts! Besides that, Linux only bottled up for the little guys, >> HP, IBM, and thousands of other companies used linux every day in >> products or high end services, such as phone/networking gear. >> Who is suing them? > > Nobody, because they obey the GPL. Or should they be sued only because > they are big companies? > >> Hell, the US DOD uses Linux like crazy... Who are we kidding with >> the entire GPL schrade? (Keep the serfs where they belong, methinks). > > They are just *using* linux. What laws are they breaking? Why should they > be sued? -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
