Re: [ECOS] ecos license question.

[Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>]

Fabrice Gautier wrote:
> > Not with the MPL. If you change something, then someone might 
> > be entitled to those changes, but that someone isn't necessarily
> > you :-).
>
> Gah? If _I_ change something _I_ may not be entitled to those changes ? 
>
> My point was that if I receive a binary, I'm entitled to the eCos source
> code that is inside the binary no matter what license the binary falls under
> (I believe MPL section 3.2 says that). One things that differ may be the
> means you get the source. When I get that source code I get it in one of the
> 3 options, as the distributor choose.
Aargh. I've just looked it up and this is one of the areas the MPL and 
RHEPL differ - I had thought they were more alike than that. Sigh - we've 
been talking at cross purposes a little. My bad, sorry.

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


--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss