Montavista Compiler License

[Griffis, Brad]

Hi all,

Maybe someone from Montavista or anyone else with experience using Montavista tools can help answer my question.

A customer recently discovered "the hard way" that once your one year support contract with Montavista expires that your compiler ceases to function. The customer's product is more or less complete, but it could be in production for a lengthy amount of time (10 years). During that time it's likely that a few bug reports will come in and they will need to rebuild some things. Normally a customer would expect to fix the bug and make a firmware update, but that's not possible since their compiler is crippled! So what is recommended in this situation?

In general I think Montavista provides a great service to customers and to the community. I highly recommend Montavista to customers, particularly those customers who are not Linux gurus. This compiler issue is a bit sticky though and I hope there is some kind of clean solution where both Montavista and our customers can be happy.

Thanks,
Brad

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Brad Griffis
Technical Staff - DSP Applications
Texas Instruments
Schaumburg, IL
Office: 847-517-4699
Fax: [phone]

[Vladimir Pantelic]

Post by Griffis, Brad
Hi all,
Maybe someone from Montavista or anyone else with experience using Montavista tools can help answer my question.
A customer recently discovered "the hard way" that once your one year support contract with Montavista expires that
your compiler ceases to function. The customer's product is more or less complete, but it could be in production for
a lengthy amount of time (10 years). During that time it's likely that a few bug reports will come in and they will
need to rebuild some things. Normally a customer would expect to fix the bug and make a firmware update, but that's
not possible since their compiler is crippled! So what is recommended in this situation?
In general I think Montavista provides a great service to customers and to the community. I highly recommend
Montavista to customers, particularly those customers who are not Linux gurus. This compiler issue is a bit sticky
though and I hope there is some kind of clean solution where both Montavista and our customers can be happy.

just to be clear, we are speaking about the GCC based (GPL licensed) toolchain, right? Or a compiler that is not GPL
based and MV wrote themselves?

customer can always ask MV for the source code, if there is a timebomb inside, it is a matter of minutes to remove.

If the MV IDE stops working, so be it, but the GPL toolchain of course must not...

Regards,

Vladimir

[Diego Dompe]

I'm not a lawyer,

But if the toolchain is GPL (which I think it is), then is a GPL
violation that it stops working.

Now, does the compiler really stops working at all (gcc bla bla give
you errors?) or the IDE stops working?

Diego

Post by Vladimir Pantelic

Post by Griffis, Brad
Hi all,
Maybe someone from Montavista or anyone else with experience using
Montavista tools can help answer my question.
A customer recently discovered "the hard way" that once your one
year support contract with Montavista expires that
your compiler ceases to function. The customer's product is more
or less complete, but it could be in production for
a lengthy amount of time (10 years). During that time it's likely
that a few bug reports will come in and they will
need to rebuild some things. Normally a customer would expect to
fix the bug and make a firmware update, but that's
not possible since their compiler is crippled! So what is
recommended in this situation?
In general I think Montavista provides a great service to customers
and to the community. I highly recommend
Montavista to customers, particularly those customers who are not
Linux gurus. This compiler issue is a bit sticky
though and I hope there is some kind of clean solution where both
Montavista and our customers can be happy.

just to be clear, we are speaking about the GCC based (GPL licensed)
toolchain, right? Or a compiler that is not GPL
based and MV wrote themselves?
customer can always ask MV for the source code, if there is a
timebomb inside, it is a matter of minutes to remove.
If the MV IDE stops working, so be it, but the GPL toolchain of course must not...
Regards,
Vladimir
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source

[Griffis, Brad]

Diego,

It stops producing object code. Here's an example from a product I was using from Montavista (this was actually Mobilinux not MVPro):

a0193370# arm_v6_vfp_le-gcc hello.c
error: Error: a valid MontaVista license key could not be found.

The license files (or license server system network addresses)
attempted are listed below. Use LM_LICENSE_FILE to use a different
license file, or contact MontaVista license support at

***@mvista.com for assistance.

For information about license keys and the GPL, visit:

The license manager error is:

Feature has expired.
Feature: MV_GCC
Expire date: 28-feb-2009
License path: /opt/arm/montavista/mobilinux/LicenseFile.lic:/mnt/sata2 -
/opt/arm/montavista/common/bin/../../../../license/
FLEXnet Licensing error:-10,32
For further information, refer to the FLEXnet Licensing End User Guide,
available at "www.macrovision.com".

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 1:00 PM
To: Vladimir Pantelic
Cc: Diego Dompe; Griffis, Brad; davinci-linux-open-source
Subject: Re: Montavista Compiler License
I'm not a lawyer,
But if the toolchain is GPL (which I think it is), then is a GPL
violation that it stops working.
Now, does the compiler really stops working at all (gcc bla bla give
you errors?) or the IDE stops working?
Diego

Post by Vladimir Pantelic

Post by Griffis, Brad
Hi all,
Maybe someone from Montavista or anyone else with experience using
Montavista tools can help answer my question.
A customer recently discovered "the hard way" that once your one
year support contract with Montavista expires that
your compiler ceases to function. The customer's product is more
or less complete, but it could be in production for
a lengthy amount of time (10 years). During that time it's likely
that a few bug reports will come in and they will
need to rebuild some things. Normally a customer would expect to
fix the bug and make a firmware update, but that's
not possible since their compiler is crippled! So what is
recommended in this situation?
In general I think Montavista provides a great service to customers
and to the community. I highly recommend
Montavista to customers, particularly those customers who are not
Linux gurus. This compiler issue is a bit sticky
though and I hope there is some kind of clean solution where both
Montavista and our customers can be happy.

just to be clear, we are speaking about the GCC based (GPL licensed)
toolchain, right? Or a compiler that is not GPL
based and MV wrote themselves?
customer can always ask MV for the source code, if there is a
timebomb inside, it is a matter of minutes to remove.
If the MV IDE stops working, so be it, but the GPL toolchain of course must not...
Regards,
Vladimir
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source

[Laurent Pinchart]

Post by Griffis, Brad
Diego,
It stops producing object code. Here's an example from a product I was
a0193370# arm_v6_vfp_le-gcc hello.c
error: Error: a valid MontaVista license key could not be found.
The license files (or license server system network addresses)
attempted are listed below. Use LM_LICENSE_FILE to use a different
license file, or contact MontaVista license support at
Feature has expired.
Feature: MV_GCC
Expire date: 28-feb-2009
License path: /opt/arm/montavista/mobilinux/LicenseFile.lic:/mnt/sata2 -
/opt/arm/montavista/common/bin/../../../../license/
FLEXnet Licensing error:-10,32
For further information, refer to the FLEXnet Licensing End User Guide,
available at "www.macrovision.com".

GCC is licensed under the GPL. Basically, this means MontaVista has to provide
you with the complete software source code.

What's interesting here is that GCC is covered by the GPL and not the LGPL.
This means that they also need to release the FLEXLM source code compiled in
the GCC binary they provided. I wonder how they will comply with the GPL only
that one, as I doubt the FLEXLM code can be released under an open-source
license.

My opinion (IANAL, and I haven't studied the situation in details) so far is
that they might not be violating the GPL until someone asks them to release
the code, but that they will as soon as they refuse to release it. In that
case their right to distribute GCC will automatically be revoked until they
receive written permission by the GCC copyright owner (in this case, the GNU
project).

Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

[Griffis, Brad]

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 12:41 PM
To: Griffis, Brad
Cc: davinci-linux-open-source
Subject: Re: Montavista Compiler License

Post by Griffis, Brad
Hi all,
Maybe someone from Montavista or anyone else with experience using

Montavista tools can help answer my question.

Post by Griffis, Brad
A customer recently discovered "the hard way" that once your one year

support contract with Montavista expires that

Post by Griffis, Brad
your compiler ceases to function. The customer's product is more or

less complete, but it could be in production for

Post by Griffis, Brad
a lengthy amount of time (10 years). During that time it's likely that

a few bug reports will come in and they will

Post by Griffis, Brad
need to rebuild some things. Normally a customer would expect to fix

the bug and make a firmware update, but that's

Post by Griffis, Brad
not possible since their compiler is crippled! So what is recommended

in this situation?

Post by Griffis, Brad
In general I think Montavista provides a great service to customers and

to the community. I highly recommend

Post by Griffis, Brad
Montavista to customers, particularly those customers who are not Linux

gurus. This compiler issue is a bit sticky

Post by Griffis, Brad
though and I hope there is some kind of clean solution where both

Montavista and our customers can be happy.
just to be clear, we are speaking about the GCC based (GPL licensed)
toolchain, right? Or a compiler that is not GPL
based and MV wrote themselves?
customer can always ask MV for the source code, if there is a timebomb
inside, it is a matter of minutes to remove.
If the MV IDE stops working, so be it, but the GPL toolchain of course must not...
Regards,
Vladimir

Thank you for your reply. Good question. Yes, it's a gcc compiler so it definitely would/should be possible to remove the licensing. It uses FLEXnet licensing so it's probably tougher than some simple time-bomb somewhere.

My hope was to avoid cat and mouse games with Montavista. For example, there is a "demo version" of the compiler (without the FLEXnet licensing) that all customers can get for free. I wasn't sure if any improvements were in the real compiler though. Other thoughts I had were potentially dropping use of the Montavista toolchain altogether and using CodeSourcery instead. Would that create other problems?

Brad

[Vladimir Pantelic]

Post by Griffis, Brad
Thank you for your reply. Good question. Yes, it's a gcc compiler so it definitely would/should be possible to
remove the licensing. It uses FLEXnet licensing so it's probably tougher than some simple time-bomb somewhere.
My hope was to avoid cat and mouse games with Montavista. For example, there is a "demo version" of the compiler
(without the FLEXnet licensing) that all customers can get for free. I wasn't sure if any improvements were in the
real compiler though. Other thoughts I had were potentially dropping use of the Montavista toolchain altogether and
using CodeSourcery instead. Would that create other problems?

there is no cat and mouse game to be played, MV has to release source under the GPL and I doubt they would like
to have the flexlm part there visible for all to see, so they better release one without...

This is GPL violation, so simple!

[Laurent Pinchart]

Post by Vladimir Pantelic

Post by Griffis, Brad
Thank you for your reply. Good question. Yes, it's a gcc compiler so it
definitely would/should be possible to remove the licensing. It uses
FLEXnet licensing so it's probably tougher than some simple time-bomb
somewhere.
My hope was to avoid cat and mouse games with Montavista. For example,
there is a "demo version" of the compiler (without the FLEXnet licensing)
that all customers can get for free. I wasn't sure if any improvements
were in the real compiler though. Other thoughts I had were potentially
dropping use of the Montavista toolchain altogether and using
CodeSourcery instead. Would that create other problems?

there is no cat and mouse game to be played, MV has to release source under
the GPL and I doubt they would like to have the flexlm part there visible
for all to see, so they better release one without...

Except that they can't. They released a binary including both GPL code and
FLEXLM code. They now need to provide source code for both.

Post by Vladimir Pantelic
This is GPL violation, so simple!

Agreed.

You should first discuss the problem privately with them. If all else fails,
http://gpl-violations.org/

Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

[Nathan Ramella]

The only way this would be a violation is if they refused to release
the GPL code for their GCC port or Linux source to their paying
customer. Thats it. Make a request, they'll honor it. It's their
business model. Linking against FlexLM doesn't require them to publish
FlexLM code either, just the code in GCC that links to it.

My observation of this business practice is that when you sell GPL
software to uneducated users, you can get away with as much as your
customer will let you. There's nothing wrong with that. If someone
wants to play on 'easy-mode' using DevRocket, they pay more than
someone who plays 'Advanced Mode' with the CodeSourcery-lite. You
substitute money for time investment and vise versa.

It's unfair to accuse MV as GPL violators simply because they don't
fit the GPL model that you're familiar with.

For the record, I'm not affiliated with Montavista or a customer of
theirs. OpenEmbedded here. But I do respect their effort to make money
while adhering to the GPL model. Nothing in the GPL says that you must
take a vow of poverty to participate.

-n

Post by Vladimir Pantelic

Post by Griffis, Brad
Thank you for your reply. Good question. Yes, it's a gcc compiler
so it definitely would/should be possible to
remove the licensing. It uses FLEXnet licensing so it's probably
tougher than some simple time-bomb somewhere.
My hope was to avoid cat and mouse games with Montavista. For
example, there is a "demo version" of the compiler
(without the FLEXnet licensing) that all customers can get for
free. I wasn't sure if any improvements were in the
real compiler though. Other thoughts I had were potentially
dropping use of the Montavista toolchain altogether and
using CodeSourcery instead. Would that create other problems?

there is no cat and mouse game to be played, MV has to release
source under the GPL and I doubt they would like
to have the flexlm part there visible for all to see, so they better release one without...
This is GPL violation, so simple!
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source

[Laurent Pinchart]

Post by Nathan Ramella
The only way this would be a violation is if they refused to release
the GPL code for their GCC port or Linux source to their paying
customer. Thats it. Make a request, they'll honor it. It's their
business model. Linking against FlexLM doesn't require them to publish
FlexLM code either, just the code in GCC that links to it.

I disagree with this. The whole derivative work, GCC + FlexLM, is covered by
the GPL. They must provide all the source code.

Post by Nathan Ramella
My observation of this business practice is that when you sell GPL
software to uneducated users, you can get away with as much as your
customer will let you. There's nothing wrong with that.

Legally, no. Ethically that might be another story :-) You are of course
require to let customers know that the product incorporates GPL code.

Post by Nathan Ramella
If someone wants to play on 'easy-mode' using DevRocket, they pay more than
someone who plays 'Advanced Mode' with the CodeSourcery-lite. You
substitute money for time investment and vise versa.
It's unfair to accuse MV as GPL violators simply because they don't
fit the GPL model that you're familiar with.

It becomes a GPL violation if, among other things, they fail to provide source
code to customers who asked for it, or if they fail to inform customers that
the product incorporates GPL code.

Post by Nathan Ramella
For the record, I'm not affiliated with Montavista or a customer of
theirs. OpenEmbedded here. But I do respect their effort to make money
while adhering to the GPL model. Nothing in the GPL says that you must
take a vow of poverty to participate.

I completely agree. Many companies build business models around open-source
code, and that's perfectly fine and desirable. I'd be quite surprised if MV,
after so many years of activity in the open-source world, decided to violate
the GPL in such a blatant way.

Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

[Steve Chen]

Post by Laurent Pinchart
I completely agree. Many companies build business models around open-source
code, and that's perfectly fine and desirable. I'd be quite surprised if MV,
after so many years of activity in the open-source world, decided to violate
the GPL in such a blatant way.

That would make two of us :) Actually, all the source code are
available for download at support.mvista.com (along with all other iso
images).

I downloaded and installed the DaVinci toolchain from support.mvista.com
over 2 years ago. I haven't had any issues, so I don't know what
happened.

Regards,

Steve

[Vladimir Pantelic]

Post by Steve Chen

Post by Laurent Pinchart
I completely agree. Many companies build business models around open-source
code, and that's perfectly fine and desirable. I'd be quite surprised if MV,
after so many years of activity in the open-source world, decided to violate
the GPL in such a blatant way.

That would make two of us :) Actually, all the source code are
available for download at support.mvista.com (along with all other iso
images).

Cool, so I can get the source to gcc with flexlm there?

[Steve Chen]

Post by Vladimir Pantelic

Post by Steve Chen

Post by Laurent Pinchart
I completely agree. Many companies build business models around open-source
code, and that's perfectly fine and desirable. I'd be quite surprised if MV,
after so many years of activity in the open-source world, decided to violate
the GPL in such a blatant way.

That would make two of us :) Actually, all the source code are
available for download at support.mvista.com (along with all other iso
images).

Cool, so I can get the source to gcc with flexlm there?

I have not look inside the source iso image myself, but my understanding
is that it contains the source code of everything GPL that Monta Vista
delivers.

Please note that support.mvista.com access requires a subscription with
Monta Vista.

Regards,

Steve

[Robert Weinmann]

I went to support.mvista.com to look for source code and got redirected
to a subscriber site. Am I missing something? Anyone aware of the
updated location?

Thanks,
-Bob

ROBERT WEINMANN
DIRECTOR - EMBEDDED SYSTEMS

Appareo Systems, LLC
1854 NDSU Research Circle N
Fargo, ND 58102
P: [phone] Ext 228
C: [phone]
F: [phone]

http://www.appareo.com
***@appareo.com

NOTICE: This message (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 2510-2521, is CONFIDENTIAL and may also be protected by ATTORNEY-CLIENT OR OTHER PRIVILEGE. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, do not read it. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it.


-----Original Message-----
From:
davinci-linux-open-source-bounces+rweinmann=***@linux.davincidsp
.com
[mailto:davinci-linux-open-source-bounces+rweinmann=***@linux.da
vincidsp.com] On Behalf Of Vladimir Pantelic
Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 3:10 PM
To: Steve Chen
Cc: davinci-linux-open-***@linux.davincidsp.com
Subject: Re: Montavista Compiler License

Post by Steve Chen

Post by Laurent Pinchart
I completely agree. Many companies build business models around open-source
code, and that's perfectly fine and desirable. I'd be quite surprised if MV,
after so many years of activity in the open-source world, decided to violate
the GPL in such a blatant way.

That would make two of us :) Actually, all the source code are
available for download at support.mvista.com (along with all other iso
images).

Cool, so I can get the source to gcc with flexlm there?

[Vladimir Pantelic]

Post by Vladimir Pantelic

Post by Griffis, Brad
Thank you for your reply. Good question. Yes, it's a gcc compiler so it definitely would/should be possible to
remove the licensing. It uses FLEXnet licensing so it's probably tougher than some simple time-bomb somewhere.
My hope was to avoid cat and mouse games with Montavista. For example, there is a "demo version" of the compiler
(without the FLEXnet licensing) that all customers can get for free. I wasn't sure if any improvements were in the
real compiler though. Other thoughts I had were potentially dropping use of the Montavista toolchain altogether and
using CodeSourcery instead. Would that create other problems?

there is no cat and mouse game to be played, MV has to release source under the GPL and I doubt they would like
to have the flexlm part there visible for all to see, so they better release one without...
This is GPL violation, so simple!

As it turns out, there are some hooks in MV gcc to call an external app, and that external app them calls into
flexlm code, replacing that external app with one that just returns (0) will fix this issue and effectively
remove the licensing manager.

So, I take it back, it is not a GPL violation (I guess MV will happily provide the "hook" code), but it seems
to be at least an effective scare tactics. I wonder how many customers in the same situation just pay up...

[Griffis, Brad]

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 1:27 AM
To: Griffis, Brad
Cc: davinci-linux-open-source
Subject: Re: Montavista Compiler License
As it turns out, there are some hooks in MV gcc to call an external app,
and that external app them calls into
flexlm code, replacing that external app with one that just returns (0)
will fix this issue and effectively
remove the licensing manager.
So, I take it back, it is not a GPL violation (I guess MV will happily
provide the "hook" code), but it seems
to be at least an effective scare tactics. I wonder how many customers in
the same situation just pay up...

Yes, this is where my earlier comments about not wanting to play cat and mouse games came from. So, sure, it's possible to rebuild the source code to remove these hooks. But then again, they can change the way they implement the hooks at any time to make it a pain for people to remove them.

[Griffis, Brad]

Hi everyone,

I need to make an important clarification on this issue. My issue of gcc being tied into FlexLM applies specifically to Montavista's Mobilinux product which is what I ran my quick test on. Their more common product, e.g. MVPro5, does NOT have gcc tied into FlexLM. Only DevRocket is tied to FlexLM for MVPro.

Brad

[Vladimir Pantelic]

Post by Griffis, Brad
Hi all,
Maybe someone from Montavista or anyone else with experience using Montavista tools can help answer my question.

btw, this has come up before:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-08/msg00041.html

Post by Griffis, Brad
A customer recently discovered "the hard way" that once your one year support contract with Montavista expires that your compiler ceases to function. The customer's product is more or less complete, but it could be in production for a lengthy amount of time (10 years). During that time it's likely that a few bug reports will come in and they will need to rebuild some things. Normally a customer would expect to fix the bug and make a firmware update, but that's not possible since their compiler is crippled! So what is recommended in this situation?
In general I think Montavista provides a great service to customers and to the community. I highly recommend Montavista to customers, particularly those customers who are not Linux gurus. This compiler issue is a bit sticky though and I hope there is some kind of clean solution where both Montavista and our customers can be happy.
Thanks,
Brad
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Griffis
Technical Staff - DSP Applications
Texas Instruments
Schaumburg, IL
Office: 847-517-4699
Fax: [phone]
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source

[David Brownell]

Post by Vladimir Pantelic
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-08/msg00041.html

Those messages don't touch on the FlexLM issue.

Distributing just GCC (+patches) isn't enough.
Because its seems the GPL'd core is combined with
FlexLM, source to both must be available to anyone
who gets that combined product.

If FlexLM is actually secure, exposing its source
won't reduce "security"...

TI may have duties here too, since they distribute
some MV tools with e.g. EVM boards.

[Nathan Ramella]

If you actually want FlexSDK source, request a developer package from
Accresso. FlexLM source is a little harder to come by.

If you're just trying to prove a point, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception

Either way, brow-beating people with the GPL isn't the way to win them
over.

-n

Post by David Brownell

Post by Vladimir Pantelic
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-08/msg00041.html

Those messages don't touch on the FlexLM issue.
Distributing just GCC (+patches) isn't enough.
Because its seems the GPL'd core is combined with
FlexLM, source to both must be available to anyone
who gets that combined product.
If FlexLM is actually secure, exposing its source
won't reduce "security"...
TI may have duties here too, since they distribute
some MV tools with e.g. EVM boards.
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source

[Diego Dompe]

Post by Nathan Ramella
If you actually want FlexSDK source, request a developer package
from Accresso. FlexLM source is a little harder to come by.

Well, that isn't the point actually. The problem is that if the code
is linked again 'gcc', then it should be licensed GPL. GPL license is
more than having the access to see or use the code, also implies you
can redistribute it freely (by GPL "free" definition). I can bet you
that the developer package from Accresso has some license agreement
that is not GPL compatible. If I'm wrong, please point me to the GPL
license for FlexLM source.

Again, nobody knows if there has been a code linking between the
flexLM and the gcc unless we see the code.

Post by Nathan Ramella
If you're just trying to prove a point, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception

gcc doesn't have linking exception. The gcc function library (libgcc)
does, but gcc doesn't.

Post by Nathan Ramella
Either way, brow-beating people with the GPL isn't the way to win
them over.

Agreed that we should not paint anybody as a GPL violator based only
on assumptions. MV folks are great open source players, and I'm sure
they know what they do. Probably just mailing them asking for the
source code is enough to solve the mystery.

Diego.

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed are my own, and not reflect the
position or policy of my employer.

Post by Nathan Ramella
-n

Post by David Brownell

Post by Vladimir Pantelic
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-08/msg00041.html

Those messages don't touch on the FlexLM issue.
Distributing just GCC (+patches) isn't enough.
Because its seems the GPL'd core is combined with
FlexLM, source to both must be available to anyone
who gets that combined product.
If FlexLM is actually secure, exposing its source
won't reduce "security"...
TI may have duties here too, since they distribute
some MV tools with e.g. EVM boards.
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-
source

_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source

[Diego Dompe]

Well, I won't expect the flexLM issue addressed on that thread, if I
recall correctly last time I checked some codesourcery toolchain that
I got my hands on, it has some flexlm integration as well, (and some
of the developers on the thread are codesourcery members).

I recall when I saw that codesourcery used flexlm I was curious on how
they manage the GPL part, but as far I could manage to grep around,
they created a GPL part that just happened to call some flexlm
executable helpers (but I may have read the code wrong, you know, gcc
code is not quite a programming lesson except on how to create non-
manageable code. Long live llvm!).

I guess fooling the flexLM should not be a big issue if MV didn't do
any GPL violation (because all you have to do is remove the calls to
some external non-GPL flexLM code). They should provide you access to
the source code even if you are not a customer using
support.mvista.com, since they are redistributing GPL code, so just
mail them for the source code.

I think we should just wait to see the code before panicking on GPL
violation. (Correcting my previous statement, I thinking having the
toolchain stop working is not very into the GPL spirit, but not quite
sure a GPL violation).

Diego.

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed are my own, and not reflect the
position or policy of my employer.

Post by David Brownell

Post by Vladimir Pantelic
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-08/msg00041.html

Those messages don't touch on the FlexLM issue.
Distributing just GCC (+patches) isn't enough.
Because its seems the GPL'd core is combined with
FlexLM, source to both must be available to anyone
who gets that combined product.
If FlexLM is actually secure, exposing its source
won't reduce "security"...
TI may have duties here too, since they distribute
some MV tools with e.g. EVM boards.
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source