On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 17:56 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > In reality every transfer over a network involves many transient copies > > being made. However, I think that legally only the sender tends to be > > held responsible for distributing or copying. > > It was sent to me by TI with the express intention of including it in the > git tree in that form. I understand that, but it doesn't match what the text says. > > > I *do* expect anyone cloning the repository to comply with the indivual > > > licences for the components therein. > > > > But you also allow anyone to clone it before seeing the licence terms > > that may disallow that. > > > > So far as I know, none of the other licence texts claim to restrict > > recipients that don't use or redistribute the firmware. > > If you do nothing with the firmware, but it merely exists in your clone of > the git tree (by virtue of TI's having deliberately put it there), what > exactly are you restricted from doing? Possibly nothing - clause 1 seems to make you responsible for the behaviour of downstream users (it says 'used' and not 'for use', so your intent is irrelevant). And this applies just as much to any other distributor. > Why is this different to GPL'd firmware on which you violate the licence, > and lose your rights? The GPL is merely a licence. Recipients aren't expected to agree to it unless they copy or modify (which would be a copyright violation, in the absence of the licence). And your licence does not terminate if downstream users exceed its terms. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part