This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: ecos license question.
- From: Peter Vandenabeele <peter dot vandenabeele at mind dot be>
- To: Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>
- Cc: Shannon Holland <holland at loser dot net>, eCos Discussion <ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 18:41:31 +0100
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] ecos license question.
- Organisation: Mind NV -- http://mind.be/ -- Leuven/Belgium
- References: <676664F3-2915-11D7-8DF7-00039357DF30@loser.net> <3E26EC6E.5030200@eCosCentric.com>
- Reply-to: Peter Vandenabeele <peter dot vandenabeele at mind dot be>
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 05:31:26PM +0000, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
> Shannon Holland wrote:
[...]
> > As far as making code public, is giving my ecos changes back to the ecos
> > source tree/development group adequate or do I need to make the source
> > files available separately as well?
>
> That's probably adequate, as long as you tell the people who use your code
> that that's where it came from.
>
> By the strict definition of the GPL though, they _could_ ask for the exact
> sources you used to build with.
And that _is_ relevant, to reverse engineer what is exactly inside, and you
need to include the make files too:
"... For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code
for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files,
plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."
Peter
> Jifl
> --
> eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ <info@eCosCentric.com>
> --[ "You can complain because roses have thorns, or you ]--
> --[ can rejoice because thorns have roses." -Lincoln ]-- Opinions==mine
--
Peter.vandenabeele@mind.be - http://mind.be/
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss