On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 11:41:01AM -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> Byron Jeff wrote:
> > Actually the model isn't too bad. Microchip just needs to be happy
> > that a group hasn't done a purchase, requested and received the
> > source, then redistributed it for free yet.
>=20
> I don't think they are obligated to provide source for their custom
> additions, if these take the form of their own code calling the libary.

Subject to debate in GPL circles. As best as I can remember from the Usenet
GPL wars, that libraries whose only purpose in life were to interact with a
single GPLed software product was subject to the license.

I no longer follow the ins and out of that debate, so I'm not going to even
try to quote it.

>From the surface, MCHIP is fulfilling their obligation and I don't begrudg=
e
them making money for their efforts. All of this looks like a complete non
problem compared to the companies that take GPLed code, release product
with absolutely no intention of releasing any type of source at all.

BAJ
--=20
Byron A. Jeff
Department Chair: IT/CS/CNET
College of Information and Mathematical Sciences
Clayton State University
http://cims.clayton.edu/bjeff
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.