Peter wrote: > > On Sat, 4 Jun 2005, Matan Ziv-Av wrote: > >>> No it is not. There are many examples of kernel modules that provide >>> support for modems, network drivers and other devices, which are NOT >>> open source and NOT 'aggregations'. If you don't want to make your >>> 802.11g wireless card work >> >> >> If the modules are distributed apart from the kernel itself (as is >> usually the case for the modules you speak of), then Linus allows >> this. Some other > > > I.o.w., if the modules come on disk and are loaded at run time by a > script it's ok. You know what ? That's exactly what they are doing. > Unbelievable. What is 'distributed' in an embedded context ? An > appliance is a device.
So, if you build an embedded device that displays text (an eBook of a sort) that has built in the text of Gone with the wind (a copyrighted work) you are exempt from receiving a license to distribute Gone with the Wind from the holder of the copyright because it's an embedded system? Funny, must've missed that in my last read through copyright law... > It contains everything that needs to be in it to > make it work. Even the batteries sometimes. And Linus and the authors of > the libraries and of the utilities (and of busybox) know this and they > are ok with this, as far as an open source solution does not exist. Can you show me a single place where Linus says so? Because I can show you several places where Linus publicly states exaqctly the opposite... (http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735) More to the point, both the coyright holders of kernel code and of busybox have sued and won a very similar case of voilations of their rights in regard to same code. > The > LGPL was designed specifically to allow user applications to be linked > against it for this purpose, and most libraries used in embedded are > under LGPL. Busybox and the Linux kernel are not covered by the LGPL. >>> http://www.mvista.com/previewkit/ This is a commercial firm that >>> provides advanced linux development packages. >> >> >> Monta Vista provides source with every binary of a GPL program that >> they provide. What has that got to do with ECI? > > > Hello ?! We are talking about an ECI router box that runs a Monta Vista > Linux kernel and busybox, yes ? Don't lose focus on the original topic, > I will not follow you in philosophical pursuits. The only problem is that regardless to Monte Vista or ECI, the person that did distribute the code in violation of the license terms is Bezeq. I'm pretty sure MonteVista did not violate the terms. I can only assume that ECI did not violate the terms (but I don't know anything about it because they did not distribute anything to me) but I *know* that Bezeq violated the terms of the license agreement. > >> What I can or can not find on the internet is irrelevant to the fact >> that ECI have to do specific things if they want to distributes Linux >> or Busybox, and the other fact, that they do not do those things. > > > This is ridiculous. What do you expect them to do, email you a cdrom ? What we accept them to do is follow the terms of the license to the letter. All it requires is that in the glossy paper manual that they ship with the unit they will add a paragraph that reads: "This product contains software that is licensed under the terms of the GNU pulibc license. We hereby grant a non revocable right valid for 3 years since the shipment of this product to any third party to recieve the original source code for this work blah blah.." That's all. > What do you mean what has this got to do with the ECI router ?!! Where > do you think I got the information about Monta Vista on that box ?!! I > ssh'd into it and typed cat /proc/version !!! > > You have no idea what you are talking about, you are interpreting things > in ways that defy objective reality, and I think that threads like this > can cause people who later find them in the archives to draw wrong > conclusions as to the suitability of Linux for embedded appliances. Your > kind of postings on this thread so far has been a disservice to Linux > and to the spirit of the GPL in my opinion. Why do you want to shoot the messanger? all he is telling you is that these are the license terms. He happens to be right. Like it or not they are binding. Would you not prefer the people who consider to use Linux in an embedded environment to make an informed judgement? No one is claiming that Bezeq/ECI or MV did some horrible crime. We claim that due to what is probably an oversight somewhere an important paragraph has been ommited from the box manual. Because of this, Bezeq at least is now technically in violation of the copyright of the copyright holders of Busybox and the Linux kernel but I am sure that this have been done by mistake. Why are you so angry? Gilad ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
