Vladimir Pantelic wrote:
Griffis, Brad wrote:
Thank you for your reply. Good question. Yes, it's a gcc compiler so it
definitely would/should be possible to
remove the licensing. It uses FLEXnet licensing so it's probably tougher than
some simple time-bomb somewhere.
My hope was to
-Original Message-
From: Vladimir Pantelic [mailto:p...@nt.tu-darmstadt.de]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 1:27 AM
To: Griffis, Brad
Cc: davinci-linux-open-source
Subject: Re: Montavista Compiler License
As it turns out, there are some hooks in MV gcc to call an external app
Hi everyone,
I need to make an important clarification on this issue. My issue of gcc being
tied into FlexLM applies specifically to Montavista's Mobilinux product which
is what I ran my quick test on. Their more common product, e.g. MVPro5, does
NOT have gcc tied into FlexLM. Only
Griffis, Brad wrote:
Hi all,
Maybe someone from Montavista or anyone else with experience using Montavista
tools can help answer my question.
A customer recently discovered the hard way that once your one year support
contract with Montavista expires that
your compiler ceases to function.
I'm not a lawyer,
But if the toolchain is GPL (which I think it is), then is a GPL
violation that it stops working.
Now, does the compiler really stops working at all (gcc bla bla give
you errors?) or the IDE stops working?
Diego
On Aug 6, 2009, at 11:41 AM, Vladimir Pantelic wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Vladimir Pantelic [mailto:p...@nt.tu-darmstadt.de]
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:41 PM
To: Griffis, Brad
Cc: davinci-linux-open-source
Subject: Re: Montavista Compiler License
Griffis, Brad wrote:
Hi all,
Maybe someone from Montavista
at www.macrovision.com.
-Original Message-
From: Diego Dompe [mailto:diego.do...@ridgerun.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 1:00 PM
To: Vladimir Pantelic
Cc: Diego Dompe; Griffis, Brad; davinci-linux-open-source
Subject: Re: Montavista Compiler License
I'm not a lawyer
Griffis, Brad wrote:
Thank you for your reply. Good question. Yes, it's a gcc compiler so it
definitely would/should be possible to
remove the licensing. It uses FLEXnet licensing so it's probably tougher than
some simple time-bomb somewhere.
My hope was to avoid cat and mouse games with
On Thursday 06 August 2009 20:13:46 Vladimir Pantelic wrote:
Griffis, Brad wrote:
Thank you for your reply. Good question. Yes, it's a gcc compiler so it
definitely would/should be possible to remove the licensing. It uses
FLEXnet licensing so it's probably tougher than some simple
On Thursday 06 August 2009 20:10:08 Griffis, Brad wrote:
Diego,
It stops producing object code. Here's an example from a product I was
using from Montavista (this was actually Mobilinux not MVPro):
a0193370# arm_v6_vfp_le-gcc hello.c
error: Error: a valid MontaVista license key could not
The only way this would be a violation is if they refused to release
the GPL code for their GCC port or Linux source to their paying
customer. Thats it. Make a request, they'll honor it. It's their
business model. Linking against FlexLM doesn't require them to publish
FlexLM code either,
On Thursday 06 August 2009 21:16:23 Nathan Ramella wrote:
The only way this would be a violation is if they refused to release
the GPL code for their GCC port or Linux source to their paying
customer. Thats it. Make a request, they'll honor it. It's their
business model. Linking against FlexLM
Griffis, Brad wrote:
Hi all,
Maybe someone from Montavista or anyone else with experience using Montavista
tools can help answer my question.
btw, this has come up before:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-08/msg00041.html
A customer recently discovered the hard way that once your one
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 21:39 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
I completely agree. Many companies build business models around open-source
code, and that's perfectly fine and desirable. I'd be quite surprised if MV,
after so many years of activity in the open-source world, decided to violate
Steve Chen wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 21:39 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
I completely agree. Many companies build business models around open-source
code, and that's perfectly fine and desirable. I'd be quite surprised if MV,
after so many years of activity in the open-source world,
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 22:10 +0200, Vladimir Pantelic wrote:
Steve Chen wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 21:39 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
I completely agree. Many companies build business models around
open-source
code, and that's perfectly fine and desirable. I'd be quite
On Thursday 06 August 2009, Vladimir Pantelic wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-08/msg00041.html
Those messages don't touch on the FlexLM issue.
Distributing just GCC (+patches) isn't enough.
Because its seems the GPL'd core is combined with
FlexLM, source to both must be available to
If you actually want FlexSDK source, request a developer package from
Accresso. FlexLM source is a little harder to come by.
If you're just trying to prove a point, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception
Either way, brow-beating people with the GPL isn't the way to win
Well, I won't expect the flexLM issue addressed on that thread, if I
recall correctly last time I checked some codesourcery toolchain that
I got my hands on, it has some flexlm integration as well, (and some
of the developers on the thread are codesourcery members).
I recall when I saw
, 2009 3:10 PM
To: Steve Chen
Cc: davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com
Subject: Re: Montavista Compiler License
Steve Chen wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 21:39 +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
I completely agree. Many companies build business models around
open-source
code, and that's
If you actually want FlexSDK source, request a developer package
from Accresso. FlexLM source is a little harder to come by.
Well, that isn't the point actually. The problem is that if the code
is linked again 'gcc', then it should be licensed GPL. GPL license is
more than having the
21 matches
Mail list logo
