From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JEU64-0007F6-3V for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:31:44 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0F3D4E082D; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:31:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from coliposte.enst-bretagne.fr (coliposte.enst-bretagne.fr [192.108.115.12]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C508E035C for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:31:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by coliposte.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.7/8.13.7/2006.08.14) with ESMTP id m0EIVLJB030885 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:31:21 +0100 Received: from maisel-gw.enst-bretagne.fr (maisel-gw.enst-bretagne.fr [192.44.76.8]) by coliposte.enst-bretagne.fr (8.13.7/8.13.7/2008.01.11) with ESMTP id m0EIVF7F030867 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:31:17 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost.maisel.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1]) by maisel-gw.enst-bretagne.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 337CF4968D for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:31:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from maisel-gw.enst-bretagne.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (venus.maisel.enst-bretagne.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0Hr6kVxc3e6F for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:31:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from [172.22.202.138] (the-world.maisel.enst-bretagne.fr [172.22.202.138]) by maisel-gw.enst-bretagne.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1BCB49610 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:31:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <478BAA2B.5060800@gnoo.eu> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:30:03 +0100 From: Jil Larner User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071117) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Daniel Robbins' come back ? References: <1200129071.4788842fc5816@imp.free.fr> <200801141911.02433.shrdlu@unlimitedmail.org> In-Reply-To: <200801141911.02433.shrdlu@unlimitedmail.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at enst-bretagne.fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 33693a13-7b67-42ee-a6ad-48097ae6f85a X-Archives-Hash: bbfc06abbaabdd76bad6c0603ee61a0f May I suggest you split the discussion if you continue about licensing, so we can keep a clear topic on Daniel's come back ? Thanks Etaoin Shrdlu a =E9crit : > On Monday 14 January 2008, James wrote: >=20 >>> Absolutely not -- For BSD licensing please use BSD. I see no reason >>> why everything Gentoo related can't be GPL v2 -- after all, the >>> kernel certainly is. >> It runs a little deeper than this, particularly when you look at how >> is doing what. For example >> >> There are Dozens of corporations willing to sell 'embedded linux' to >> you. Yet the core of their offering is the same linux you used (with >> some tweaks at the kernel, HAL and a few other places). How does Monta >> Vista get to sell embedded linux without being sued? >=20 > The GPL does allow to sell your product (as opposite to giving it away=20 > for free). Why should Montavista be sued if they respect the GPL? As=20 > long as they distribute the source code with their products (which=20 > admittedly I don't know), they are fine. Just because the sources are=20 > not downloadable from their site, does not mean that they should be=20 > sued. >=20 >> I really don't think this is the place to discuss licensing but the >> BSD vs GPLv(2/3) is a hugely complicated issue. Lots of small >> companies are being quietly sued for building products related to >> embedded linux. But, none of the large corporations that do the same >> or worse are being sued....? >=20 > It seems to me that the difference is not between small or big companie= s,=20 > but rather between those who obey the GPL and those who do not. > Recently, someone noticed that ASUS (not exactly a small company) had n= ot=20 > published the full sources for their eee pc OS on their site; they were= =20 > notified, and subsequently they added that code. Read the full story: >=20 > http://cliffhacks.blogspot.com/2007/11/asus-eeepc-first-impressions-and= -gpl.html > http://cliffhacks.blogspot.com/2007/11/asus-eeepc-some-sources-posted.h= tml >=20 > Other companies have been sued or notified, but not just because they=20 > were big or small, but because they failed to obey the GPL (xterasys,=20 > monsoon, fortinet, d-link...you can find tons of cases just by googling= =20 > a bit), someone even admitted their faults,=20 > In some cases, the companies were declared guilty. >=20 >> Again you miss the point. If some small company builds a product, they >> are not going to want to stray very far from the linux kernel tree. >> The most they do is write a device driver. If they have some real >> 'magic' you just put a second sub $1 micro processor on the circuit >> board and locate your "magic" therein. It's as easy as eating pie. >> Publish your gpl code on the big micro and hide your magic in a small >> proccessor/DSP/FPGA/PAL. There are many other schemes to get around >> GPL, including writing your own boot loader. (not as difficult as it >> sounds). >> >> What the GPLv3 is doing is effectively keeping the little guys from >> building products ~100% based on linux and open source. They have not >> stopped a single well funded company (or an entire country like China) >> from using linux and open source as they choose. =20 >=20 > Why should they have been stopped? >=20 >> This is a very huge reason for the current state of affairs for failed >> technology companies (particularly in the USA), at the present time.=20 >> The Linux Journal has a big campaign to locate "linux inside" of >> products, basically asking folks to 'rat out' companies using linux to >> make a buck. >=20 > Making money, even lots of money, with linux is not prohibited. What is= =20 > wrong is when someone does not obey the GPL, and that's what LJ wants t= o=20 > do: to discover companies that try to benefit from the work of the linu= x=20 > community without giving anything back (I think you are referring to=20 > the "linux incognito" initiative here). >=20 >> You still believe gplv3 is a good thing? I think *GPLv3* is the spawn >> of Satan, and that's the reason most of the kernel devs did not go for >> that *horse hockey*! >> >>> That being said, it would be fantastic if the Gentoo Foundation >>> found ways to make money :) >> It will never happen as longs as "myths" such as the ones you espouse >> reign supreme, IMHO. The reason that Gentoo and all of those souls >> that develop and support it is floundering on near financial failure, >> is the tenants (goals) that others have brain washed onto the masses, >> IMHO. >> >> The very best way (IMHO) to promote democracy and freedom is for >> the people to have a way to make money as entrepreneurs and small >> business people. Keeping Linux bottled up, via the GPL is just >> plain nuts! Besides that, Linux only bottled up for the little guys, >> HP, IBM, and thousands of other companies used linux every day in >> products or high end services, such as phone/networking gear. >> Who is suing them? >=20 > Nobody, because they obey the GPL. Or should they be sued only because=20 > they are big companies? >=20 >> Hell, the US DOD uses Linux like crazy... Who are we kidding with >> the entire GPL schrade? (Keep the serfs where they belong, methinks). >=20 > They are just *using* linux. What laws are they breaking? Why should th= ey=20 > be sued? --=20 gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list