Re: Monta Vista software license terms

[Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Nilmoni Deb wrote:

> This is not really about anybody's feelings or politeness. Nothing
> personal is involved here. I reported the matter here because I wanted to
> clarify certain claims made by certain vendor. Since it involves the
> linux kernel, why not ask the folks at the kernel list itself ? 
> And contacting the vendor may not get me an unbiased opinion.
> I am glad that one major issue has been clarified. As for rousing
> "public reaction", the "public" is free is get aroused (or not aroused)
> and that should not deter people from bringing issues to the forefront.

But it is not about the Linux kernel. It is purely about interpretation of
the GPL, which would be far better addressed in other forums dealing with
either FSF, GPL, or legal issues.

This whole thing is basically one person trying to discredit a company for
not doing things the GPL doesn't require. If they distributed source they
satisfied their responsibilities, and they have none to non-customers.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.