[LAU] Fairlight

[Patrick Shirkey]

On Thu, October 25, 2012 8:30 am, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>
>> Anyway this situation is completely different. Fairlight are shipping
>> products that already use Linux software. They have a legal obligation
>> under the GPL.
>
> To you? Are you their client?
>
>>> Out of curiosity, why is it that every time some vendor makes use of
>>> free software, the first reaction is "hey, release source code"?
>>>
>>> Is it the only thing that interests you?
>>>
>>
>> No one did anything about Korg or Yamaha for all these years. What makes
>> you think that it's everyones first reaction?
>
> What makes you think I was referring to either Korg or Yamaha?
>

Above you said "every time". I was pointing out that it is not everytime.


>> Look at Groove OS too. Rui and Christian fed back a huge amount of their
>> code into their existing open source solutions so nobody was upset if
>> Lionstracs didn't publicly release all their code in a single package.
>
> They still have the obligation, as you've just said yourself. You
> might as well go after them. Or are we back to the old tried double
> standards? :)
>

If you care to do some research Dominic has personally offered to do just
that for anyone who was interested even going so far as to offer to put
all his applicable code online. Given that Christian and Rui wrote the
Majority of it and have already opensourced most of the useful stuff there
doesn't seem to be any specific purpose to push harder than that. The code
is open and both Rui and christian are very active contributors to LAD so
logic and rational suggests there is nothing to be gained by jumping up
and down about the issue.


>> In this case Fairlight may just not be aware of their explicit legal
>> obligations. No one knows unless they ask. I don't see any harm if, for
>> example the Consortium sends a generic letter by email and physical copy
>> alerting them of their legal obligations and outlining the positive
>> aspects of doing the "Right Thing" (tm)
>
> That would be very nice and human. </sarcasm>
>

Please explain why it would be a negative thing for the Consortium to take
on such a role?

Would you prefer for random people with no specific affiliation to do the
job or would you prefer for it to not be done at all?

Are you suggesting that there is nothing to be gained from politely
alerting companies of their legal obligations before they get into
trouble?


--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd