"Peter Köhlmann" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
amicus_curious wrote:
"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.
What you think is irrelevant
Anyone wishing to fuss with the code should get it
from the original source, i.e. Busybox.org or whatever.
Right. In true Bill Weisgerber mode, you try to put the burden on the
costumer, instead of the distributor.
Just where do you get the idea that my name is Bill Weisgerber? I asked
before, but you are at a loss for words.
Also, if you were interested in BusyBox, where would you yourself go to get
source? Actiontec?
No one is going
to use BusyBox without knowing that they can get it from the original
source.
And you know this from where, exactly? Your ass?
It is only basic prudence. Go to the source, not some third party ten times
removed. You look silly contesting that idea.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
