On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:05:02 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
> I have read through it previously and I don't have any problem with the > notion as a concept. However, in the case of BusyBox, such hypothetical > benefits did not accrue to the copyright holders. There was no > modification that changed the library for the authors' benefit or any > user. In the JMRI case, the district judge found the same thing to be > true. You're begging the question. Your "conclusion" is that the source need only be available if it's been modified, and, since the source wasn't modified, then it need not be available. -Thufr _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
