On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Cathey, Jim <jcat...@ciena.com> wrote: > My (lay) understanding of this is that there are two separate > issues: > > 1) Company contributes (back) to the project. > 2) Company provides sources of whatever they did. > > Obviously #1 is preferable, assuming the mods are palatable, > but only #2 is required. It would take an interested (and > possibly third) party to fold #2's back to #1's. > > All this discussion seems to be focused on #1, but Sony > is (?) in the #2 camp. Unless maybe they're in #3: > > 3) Company takes sources and never exhibits its modifications. > > I thought that only #3's were liable. #2's are merely annoying.
The problem is that the whole Sony would be liable, even if only parts of it did #3 (by mistake), and other parts did their duty, even #1. % git log --author="sony.com" --oneline | wc -l 190 At least they seem to be doing something for the Linux kernel, so I don't buy this "Sony" wants to do something illegal (#3). Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
