In gnu.misc.discuss amicus_curious <[email protected]> wrote: > "Rahul Dhesi" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> "amicus_curious" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>Look at the SFLC website for a complete list. Typically, some company, >>>for >>>example Monsoon, uses stock FOSS stuff in their product, which is what the >>>FOSS folk seem to want them to do... >> Typically these example companies are misappropriating copyrighted >> software. It takes negligible effort to include a copy of the GPL with >> their software distributions. If they don't, this is clearly an attempt >> to hide their wrong-doing. > I don't agree with that. The FOSS value proposition is that if you use it, > fine, and if you modify it and distribute it you must disclose your > modifications. That is not as fine, but the targets of the SFLC did not > modify BusyBox at all. That is only visible when the source code is available. > They simply used it, overlooking the notion that they had to mirror the > source for it. Since they got it for free so easily, it is easy to see > how they could assume that they didn't really need to bother with the > details. That might have been the case 15 years ago, but nowadays _anybody_, barring a confirmed troglodyte, who has anything at all to do with any sort of software development must be cannot help but be aware of free software and its licenses. And a company using software not developed by itself can't help but check the license terms of that software. > It isn't like anything was hidden. Exactly. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
