On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Kyle Moffett wrote: > Additionally, they fail to provide the source code for any of the > packages they distribute, and some, including the ones listed above, > they fail to provide any mention at all.
Wouldn't that be a pretty obvious GPL violation? Nevermind giving credit where it's due -- though that is of course important and I'm not trying to diminish that angle -- if they're violating that wouldn't that be illegal or something? I saw that magazine today, and was annoyed that the cover talked about the 'shareware' and 'demos', but didn't seem to have any of the great free software that we're all using. It didn't even dawn on me -- duh -- that of course it was there, they just didn't use the term I was expecting. The store version of the magazine is shrinkwrapped, so I couldn't thumb through it to see what the contents are. Is no mention made anywhere of where this stuff comes from, where the source can be obtained, etc? > They are breaking the GPL and the LGPL in more ways in more packages > than I can count. Other licenses are potentially also broken. Yes, you have to wonder, don't you? > They only provide the GPL on their web site, but they have packages for > other licenses distributed too. They provide "the GPL", as in the legal document itself, or do they actually fulfill the GPL by including the software source? Should we as Fink users & developers try to get some publicity for this? Submit it to whatever Mac/tech sites, try to contact some journalists, etc? -- Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apache / mod_perl / http://homepage.mac.com/chdevers/resume/ "More war soon. You know how it is." -- mnftiu.cc _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
