"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 19:52:22 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
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.
So you don't dispute the legality of the GPL? You're just find it
inconvenient? If so, then don't distribute GPL'd software and go about
your business.
I wouldn't think of distributing it. I also think that suing someone
over not distributing it is just a silly ego trip for the authors.
Nobody gets sued for "not distributing" GPLed software.
You sound dumber by the second
Have you so soon forgotten Monsoon Software and the others? They were sued
for not distributing the GPL source.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
