From 6054ab657a719fe76da324087ac2a04efeaf06ab Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 08:49:45 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Link to copyleft.org to explain CCS. --- .../static/linux-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-faq.html | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/www/conservancy/static/linux-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-faq.html b/www/conservancy/static/linux-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-faq.html index c70e7874..b418dff7 100644 --- a/www/conservancy/static/linux-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-faq.html +++ b/www/conservancy/static/linux-compliance/vmware-lawsuit-faq.html @@ -70,7 +70,8 @@ usual, friendly, and non-confrontational way. Nevertheless, VMware immediately referred Conservancy to VMware's outside legal counsel in the USA, and Conservancy negotiated with VMware's legal counsel throughout - late 2011, 2012 and 2013. We exchanged and reviewed CCS candidates, and + late 2011, 2012 and 2013. We exchanged and reviewed + CCS candidates, and admittedly, VMware made substantial and good efforts toward compliance on BusyBox. However, VMware still refused to fix a few minor and one major compliance problem that we discovered during the process. Namely, there