Wouldn't it be easier to just say that in the header with the copyright
notice? Then there's no scaring people with an outrageous license and
no confusion about TS's policy for code on the site.
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: On Behalf
Of Kris
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 5:23 PM
To:
Subject: [ts-7000] Re: SW license
Our policy is you can do whatever you want with the code on our FTP site
as long as it is used on our products.
It depends on what you are posting to, but you are right, any open
source mailing list would laugh at you. We really simply put that there
to get people to question why it is there.
-Kris Bahnsen
Technologic Systems
--- In Jason <> wrote:
>
> 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 <wouter@> 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
------------------------------------
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/
|