Kris,
On 12/13/2010 01:15 PM, Kris wrote:
> I would like to provide a bit of clarification. That is a license we
> put on a large amount of our software products (if there is even a
> license slapped on there at all). We are want to deter people from
> using our code on products that are not ours. Since you are here and
> asking about it, we likely have no reason to be concerned that you
> are using it.
>
So, by posting to this mailinglist, I can bypass *all* legal notices
found in files at ftp.embeddedarm.com and just assume GPL/BSD? Do I
just need to show a packing slip/receipt? IANAL, but that doesn't sound
like a lawyer has even glanced at it.
I'm pretty sure if I tried to contribute code to an open source project
listing the above as copyright history for some code I pulled from
ftp.embeddedarm.com I'd get laughed right off the mailinglist. ;-)
> We actually tend to dual-license our kernel code, GPL to the linux
> community, and BSD to our customers specifically. This allows our
> end customers to have proprietary aspect to their products. All of
> the sources on our FTP site are considered to be under BSD, but only
> when used with our products.
Why not just draft up a header stating as much? It's _not_ open source,
but at least it would be truthful.
> We actually leave a big scary license
> block in place to scare off those not using our products, and when
> customers call up and ask we can clarify that for them.
>
It sounds like your trying to give yourselves wiggle room without paying
to consult a lawyer. I'm just not sure what you guys are trying to
wiggle out of... Some phantom code thief that uses playsound.c on a
gumstix?
> -Kris Bahnsen Technologic Systems
As is custom with most licensing discussions, could you please use a
company email address (! @yahoo.com) when stating the company's stance
on licensing issues? Thanks.
Jason.
>
>
> --- In Wouter Simons <> wrote:
>>
>> It is Legal to use kernel drivers with closed source drivers as
>> long as it is defined in the module source with
>> MODULE_LICENSE("<license>"); This is actually used quite a lot even
>> though a closed source driver will have restrictions in how it can
>> interact with other systems (mainly exporting symbols will not work
>> as expected).
>>
>> Just think of your NVidia drivers for instance.
>>
>> This is particularly useful for modules that are developed in
>> embedded environments because you may be putting proprietary code
>> in a kernel module for your application that contains trade
>> secrets. So allowing non-GPL code in the kernel actually
>> facilitates using Linux in restrictive closed source commercial
>> environments.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Wouter
>>
>> Van:
>> Namens Jason Stahls Verzonden: maandag 13 december 2010 1:26 Aan:
>> Onderwerp: Re: [ts-7000] SW license
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> I see the same notice in the board-specific OpenCore-files
>>>>> i've been working on (fpga).
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be very interesting if someone from TS could clarify
>>>>> how "CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL, PROPRIETARY AND TRADE SECRET
>>>>> INFORMATION OF TECHNOLOGIC SYSTEMS" should be interpreted and
>>>>> related to, and if there is a general "PRIOR WRITTEN
>>>>> PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF TECHNOLOGIC SYSTEMS" for the files
>>>>> available from the ftp.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If this is being distributed as part of Linux binaries,
>>>> compiled into a kernel they are providing then clearly it is a
>>>> GPL violation. You can't add propreitary extensions to the
>>>> Linux kernel. You must make the source available to all those
>>>> you provide binaries to, and it must be licensed under the GPL.
>>>> Putting any restrictions on code distributed as part of Linux
>>>> is not permitted.
>
> That's not totally accurate AFAIK, but ether way both of the
> examples given so far weren't kernel modules, or patches to GPL
> software. What TS chooses to expose about their FPGA loads is their
> business and the other C source file sure didn't look to be a patch
> or kernel module. You can put restrictions on a Linux distro by
> including proprietary or non-GPL binaries, you just have to make
> available all the GPL source and any patches you made to any GPL
> code. If your binaries don't contain any GPL modules or code you're
> free to keep it's source as tightly locked up as you want. This whole
> bit is one of the really big problems with the GPL since even
> patent/copyright lawyers can't seem to agree on exactly how far it
> spans and if using GPL'd libc functions makes your app fall into GPL
> ect.
>
>>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ts-7000/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ts-7000/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|