Krisbee wrote: > I was hoping Clive would have time to answer my question, #2492 appears > to offer a possible immunity blueprint for any future efforts, but > leaves things unanswered. Perhaps it's not posslbe to illucidate > further in plublic.
The problem is that legal responsibility doesn't stop for what I'm not not distributing.... It still exists for what has already been distributed. I cannot put the genie back in the bottle. It is out and it is staying out. And with (there was one, but now two) commercial entities already using the CSOS F19 image as a basis for a commercial product, it just makes things even more complicated. And I really don't want to shine on a torch on why, and make people who might not have been aware of something, aware of it. Just figure this... There is a bloody good reason why Clive was talking about making condition number 1 of a license agreement under which an image is distributed, "For non-commercial use ONLY! Commercial use prohibited!", and it's not because Clive wishes to "tax" them for every unit of a product they sell, to boost his pension pot. It's all about liability! ;) Krisbee wrote: > Good news re: Bone Player if cost is reasonable, bad news if company > dodge the community image. Personally, I can't see a company wanting to > maintain a free image and would be likely to add to the Bone Player cost > to re-coup any expenditure involved with that free image. I hear you, but that side of it would be nothing to do with me. I cant demand that they use "my" price list. Krisbee wrote: > Bad news if this work now passes into the hands of a "for profit" > company and is lost to the open community. Doesn't it also give the > "for profit" company a rapid way to create and sell a cubietruck image > if they so wish? Any work you may have done for the Cubietruck will be > lost to the open community. Yep, and unfortunately there is an element of this. Of course, they don't want code that I haven't published under GPL yet, to be "given away" to anyone who wants it, ie. competitors. They aren't interested in anything other than a finished player. But that's the payback for the finished player, having to distribute community images. They realise that they need to give something back. And right now, it looks like they lack a cursory understanding of the GPL, kernel development.... That they would have to publish source for kernel modifications to GPL'd code, (and indeed entire kernel source), with the exception of the board specific I2S driver packaged as an akmod, which could be licensed under something other than the GPL and be binary only, is going to derail this anyway.... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ JackOfAll's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3069 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=99395 _______________________________________________ unix mailing list unix@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/unix
