Request for Kernel Source 2.6.16.62-111 - Page 3

BAlfson · #21 (**permalink**) 06-26-2009, 04:22 PM

Thanks for your response, tmbm50. I probably over-reacted to what I perceived as one unhappy business partner calling out another in this forum; I thought, "there are proper channels for that, and it's not our problem!"

I googled yesterday and found a site where you can lodge a formal complaint against Astaro for their GPL policy. I could not find a formal list of "GPL Officers" for the organizations that use GPL code. Like most people here, I know of GPL, but have no interest in the details nor in using the source code, so I admit to ignorance of these things.

Have a nice day! - Bob

BAlfson · #22 (**permalink**) 08-21-2009, 08:53 PM

I ran across the following article: Does GPL still matter? | Developer World - InfoWorld

For those who support Astaro's continued use and support of GPL, it appears that a confrontational approach could well stimulate Astaro to chose another license provider.

Cheers - Bob

Billybob · #23 (**permalink**) 08-22-2009, 09:39 PM

Oh boy, you dug out the old can of worms

I am by no means any kind of licensing expert but don't believe for a second that businesses are not protecting their IP rights. The code that astaro can protect is already protected. Linux is released under GPL, you can't just recompile it and say now its proprietary. Same goes for other GPL products that are integral part of astaro. I think astaro has had a pretty good history of providing source code for their stable releases. Lets just leave it at that

barkas · #24 (**permalink**) 10-29-2009, 11:28 PM

In case you didn't know, if you use GPL'ed sources, modify them and redistribute them (in binary form), you have to make the sources available also.

Not doing so invites legal action, and no, I'm not joking, most router manufacturers who didn't already got sued at least once.