"Thufir Hawat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
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.
I am not arguing the meaning of the text contained in the GPL, I am saying
that, unless the code has been modified in some useful way, then it is of no
value to the community. Anyone wishing to fuss with the code should get it
from the original source, i.e. Busybox.org or whatever. No one is going to
use BusyBox without knowing that they can get it from the original source.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
