Ter, 2006-10-24 às 14:27 +0100, Alex Hudson escreveu: > On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 13:36 +0100, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: > > Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I don't think anyone can sensibly argue > > > that the requirement to publicise a shared secret code/key is not a term > > > primarily concerned with post-violation compliance. > > > > I'd say it's primarily concerned with pre-distribution decision making. > > > > "Shall we tivoise? Oh, looks like we can't." > > It's a nice idea, but I don't buy it :) "Shall we distribute source? > Oh, looks like we can't", if you see what I mean.
Actually I don't see. Those that tried and were found moved to compliance (either by stopping or by following the terms of the license). RUi
signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente
_______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
