____/ Thufir Hawat on Sunday 08 March 2009 23:13 : \____
> On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:44:02 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> <nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:9182bd31-5bb7-47e7-
> bc7d-35ca361bc896@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>>[Jeremy Allison:] “It isn’t a case of cross-license and everything is
>>>ok. If Tom Tom or any other company cross licenses patents then by
>>>section 7 of GPLv2 (for the Linux kernel) they lose the rights to
>>>redistribute the kernel *at all*.
>>
>> Well I wouldn't put much faith in the notion. It seems to me that the
>> same was said about the Novell/Microsoft deal. If TomTom or any other
>> company comes to a private deal with Microsoft as to a settlement in the
>> current suit and keeps on shipping TomToms with Linux, who is going to
>> sue them and on what complaint? It would be amusing to see the SFLC try
>> to do that. I don't think that there is anyone else who would bother.
>>
>> The GPL has not been to court on even the notion of forcing the licensee
>> to disclose source for derivative works, much less this notion of patent
>> protection for downstream distributors. I don't think that it could
>> even apply since any downstream distributor of the TomTom software would
>> have to somehow acquire TomTom or equivalent hardware to use it on. The
>> whole notion is half-baked and far-fetched.
>
>
>
> Anyone owning a TomTom device may request the GPL'd code, and section 7
> would apply.
>
>
> -Thufir
Didn't they eventually comply with gpl-violations?
--
~~ Best of wishes
everytime you say things like this i just think of that cult of people
who send around .doc files. i dont want to communicate with people who
talk in .doc format, but they do not wish to use something else, so
they discredit those without word. --Ed, c.o.l.a.
|
|
