Closed Source ?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| azerthoth Jan 09, 2007 7:15 PM EDT |
I think their EULA says enough. If its Linux then this EULA is pretty much null and void. http://www.sonos.com/documents/sonos_eula.pdf |
| dinotrac Jan 10, 2007 4:07 AM EDT |
>I think their EULA says enough. If its Linux then this EULA is pretty much null and void. No, that's not how it works. The EULA is fine, it's the GPL that's null and void - at least if the EULA reflects how they are operating. Presuming that these folks are violating the GPL -- and the EULA is merely evidence, not proof -- the GPL self-terminates with regard to their ability to distribute, which is a much bigger problem than a null and void EULA. It means they have no right to sell their product. |
| swbrown Jan 10, 2007 7:58 PM EDT |
AFAIK the EULA's for Sonos's software that runs on top. The only GPL-related issue I've heard is that they used to not inform the recipient of the GPLed software. They provide the GPLed software they ship as is required: http://www.sonos.com/support/downloads/GPL/ Dunno if they allow you to modify the GPLed software they ship, but the TiVoize loophole won't be closed until GPL3, so kinda stuck there if they took advantage of it. |
| azerthoth Jan 10, 2007 8:53 PM EDT |
What I'm looking at is that while they have listed and published the modified (some of atleast) bits. The EULA would grant me a limited non transferable license and prohibits me from distribution of that same code. Thanks for the Samba license, I always wanted one, as well as the other 6. There is no mention of exlusion of the GPL bits in the EULA from the rights and prohibitions. Therefor arent they automagically (sorry I just like that word) included as part of the whole? |
| dinotrac Jan 11, 2007 2:56 AM EDT |
>There is no mention of exlusion of the GPL bits in the EULA from the rights and prohibitions. Not needed. The EULA is a grant of rights. If user is granted rights under the GPL, they don't need rights under the EULA. It's like dual-licensed software. QT, for example, is not GPL'd for certain applications. The GPL does not grant Trolltech the right to make QT available under a non-GPL'd license. However, as the copyright owner, Trolltech doesn't derive its rights from the GPL, so they are free to offer it under as many licenses as they please. A QT user, however, who obtains QT under the GPL, must distribute under the terms of the GPL or not at all. |
| hkwint Jan 11, 2007 3:57 AM EDT |
Quoting:Not needed. The EULA is a grant of rights. Really? Always when I read the darn things, there are mainly restrictions in it. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!