"amicus_curious" <a...@sti.net> writes: >> ...If 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....
You are confusing here between FOSS in general (which sometimes but not always requires disclosure of modifications) and the GPL in particular (which always requires disclosure of modifications for software that you distribute, but not for software that you use privately). But still, all of the free or open software licenses, so far as I can tell, require that a copy of the license be included when the covered software is distributed. The original and newer BSD licenses do, the Apache license does, the MIT license does, the Perl Artistic license does, and the GPL does. Not including the license clearly indicates that the person or company distributing the does not wish those receiving the distributed software to realize that it's covered by a specific license. This is especially true if the distributed software is accompanied by a vendor's own license. It's very convenient for a vendor to claim that the original license was somehow overlooked. But I find this claim not credible at all, especially for any company that went to the trouble of creating its own license and include that. Discussion of some subjective "value proposition" doesn't change the above. -- Rahul http://rahul.rahul.net/ _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss