Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s), linux-embedded@vger list

[James Chapman <jchapman@katalix.com>]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Tim Bird wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>> Er, is that GPL or LGPL code that you're modifying? If so, you *have* to
>>>> push those code changes out (make them available to others), whether you
>>>> think people will be interested or not!
>>> umm, not really.  only if (1) he gives a binary to someone and (2)
>>> they ask him for the source.  if he doesnt distribute or no one asks,
>>> he doesnt have to do squat.
>> This is closer to correct, but missing some important details.
>>
>> Start the GPL compliance tutorial/flameware in 3, 2, 1...
> 
> yeah, i really dont think licensing things belong here.  sorry for following up.
> 
> how about this policy: if you want to make a statement, go pay a
> lawyer.  but that statement still shouldnt be made here ;).
> -mike

Sorry, I didn't mean to provoke a GPL flame war. The point I was trying 
to make (badly as it turns out) is that if a company really wants to see 
its changes taken upstream, it could simply publish the work on its 
website and let each relevant community know that it's there. A diff of 
the changes would be ideal. This is above and beyond what they have to 
do under GPL terms of course. There's no need for a company to filter 
out changes that it thinks others won't be interested in.

-- 
James Chapman
Katalix Systems Ltd
http://www.katalix.com
Catalysts for your Embedded Linux software development