ZnU wrote: > In article <[email protected]>, David Kastrup <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> ZnU <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > I understand that the FSF is really, really hung up on every detail >> > of the GPL, but frankly, they're fanatics. >> >> Fanatics have copyright like everybody else. > > Sure, I'm not saying they don't have a right to try to enforce the > requirement to make source available even in the case of unmodified > binary distribution. I'm just saying that there's no particular reason > why anyone who's more interested in the practical impact of the GPL > rather than the ideology behind it should be particularly concerned > about entities failing to distribute source as required in instances > where that source is trivially available elsewhere. >
And you know that that source "trivially available elsewhere" is exactly the one used to build the binary how? -- Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice which can be equally well explained by stupidity _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
