>> > >Don't give up on Apc-upses ... See:
>> > >
>> > >http://www.dyer.vanderbilt.edu/server/apcupsd
>> >
>> > You aren't following the issue. The apcupsd package is the
>> > package that I'm discussing in the first place. It is GPL'd and
>> > is binary only. Not to worry, things are in the works to get
>> > this issue fixed.
>>
>> GPL + binary-only = #define DONT_THINK_SO = 1
>>
>> correct? I thought GPL says you must make source avail?
>
><MEGA FLAME>
>NOBODY GETS THIS POINT AND ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
></MEGA FLAME>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>I will be able to re-publish the source above "IF AND ONLY IF",
>someone can help me with this legal issue....
>
>There was a generic statement that ::
>"We have not pursued anyone for decoding the UPSLink Protocol, 'YET'."
>
>"YET", cause my employer to force me to pull the project of the NET....
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>For the last time what do you not understand about the above???
Well, I understand that, and I fully support your efforts Andre,
as I'm sure you're aware. However the existence of binary only
software that is GPL'd puts you in violation of the GPL. From my
discussions with you so far, I believe that this is
unintentional, and that your intentions are good, and also that
you do want to, and plan on putting out the sources.
However, the existence of these binaries without being
accompanied with source _currently_ puts you in violation
of GPL license, which I'm positive is not your intention. It
also puts APC in the position of being able to tell potential
customers "oh, yeah we don't directly support Linux, however you
can get the free apcupsd program off the net, so just buy our
UPS, no problem". IMHO, this doesn't give them much incentive to
smarten up.
You've offered to allow access to sources via NDA, which is a
very nice gesture on your part, and shows that you want to try
and help people get around the current problems. Unfortunately,
since the code is GPL, this NDA may protect you with respect to
APC, however it doesn't stop the program from infringing on the
GPL license.
So, if I were to sign this NDA, I could be breaking the law
as well, and I've decided so far to not take the chance. GPL
infringement has not AFAIK been taken to court yet, and I
certainly don't want to be involved in any lawsuits pertaining to
GPL infringement.
I certainly back you up 100% in your efforts, and would like to
do whatever I can to help. Please write me, and tell me what
I might be able to do (if anything). Feel free to write me
privately, or publically if you like.
We all want the same outcomes AFAICS, so we should work together
to try and get this going, and be careful to not step on each
other's toes. Please inform/advise us as to what route you are
planning on taking so we can help if necessary.
Thanks in advance,
TTYL
-- Mike A. Harris - Computer Consultant - Linux advocateLinux software galore: http://freshmeat.net
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/