On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
does the law see it that way? can you sue only the division responsible for the violation? no. the law says its one big entity and we cant do anything about it. so one part violates the law the entire entity violated the law. > > % 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. i myself want guarantees. not just their word that they will behave. "oops my bad"! just doesnt cut it. if its not gpl im not contributing. sony can wave their millions in my face but im not going to get a cut from those millions so i dont care. -- quarq consulting: agile, open source _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
