On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 08:47:50AM +0200, Lourens Veen wrote: > On Thu 19 August 2004 07:51, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > > I doubt any government regards the GPL as an entity, so the GPL > > has no rights. the GPL is a contract; following the GPL gives > > entities rights. SuSE can release a really buggy version of > > anything covered by the GPL, as long as they are complying with > > the terms of the GPL. what I don't get, is that if Joerg is so > > sure SuSE is in violation, why doesn't he just take them to > > court. that's why the GPL exists; so people can be made to > > comply or pay the consequences. it's not about freedom, it's > > about control. > > That's not the point. By printing out that notice, SuSE does comply > with the spirit of the GPL (that preamble clause about protecting > the author) and by not clearly marking the source code files they > may be violating the letter of the GPL. > > However, none of this is the issue. What J�rg is getting worked up > about is that he gets email from people complaining about bugs in a > version of his software that he has nothing to do with (neither > that version of cdrecord nor the bugs). That's the real issue.
then why all the griping about GPL violations? -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
