From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Frysinger Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:37:40 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] U-book and GPLv3? (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: <20090618145128.69F27832E416@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <200906251437.41559.vapier@gentoo.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Thursday 25 June 2009 10:41:13 Detlev Zundel wrote: > >>> It is this "certification is only possible like we say" attitude which > >>> I seriously question. > >> > >> whether you question this attitude doesnt matter. you arent a lawyer in > >> general, you arent a lawyer for these companies, and you arent > >> indemnifying them. their legal review says that it's a requirement, so > >> it is now a requirement for the software. anything beyond that is > >> irrelevant. > > > > Now was this so hard? This is actually an important fact that it is a > > legal requirement for a company - thanks. > > As a quick web research did not help, if this is a legal requirement, > then can you point me to the law which requires such a thing? nothing personal, but ... (1) you still arent a lawyer (2) i never said there was a law that stated this (3) i did say "their legal team came to the conclusion that ..." the law and your interpretation of it is irrelevant. customers are viewing this as a requirement and thus it's the same thing. if you think there is an image problem, then feel free to assist the GNU project in an "awareness" campaign. i work in the practical realm. -mike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20090625/784173d9/attachment-0001.pgp