In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious <[email protected]> wrote: > > "Rahul Dhesi" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> "amicus_curious" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>That gives FOSS a bad name. Who wants to use stuff like that and risk >>>getting bitten by the looney tunes that think software is some kind of >>>religious experience? >> There is a lot of truth in what you wrote, and it's not specific to free >> software. Enforcement of copyright (and patents) often gives the >> enforcer a bad name. > I don't suggest that enforcement itself is the problem, it is the > enforcement of meaningless requirements. If the RIAA pinches some > downloader, they get a few thousand bucks or more in return. That, at > least, makes some sense as to why the RIAA is being so diligent. But just > having another unvisited site for some out of date source code is hardly > worth the time and effort of the courts to go along on this ego trip. It's hardly meaningless. It means the source code is available. > Surely no one in their right mind would use the Actiontec site as a > source for BusyBox, they would go the the BusyBox project site for the > latest fixes. They're likely to want the source of the version embedded in their Actiontec box. For example, to diagnose a problem, or to complain about its out-of-dateness, or to check it for security problems. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
