"Thufir Hawat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:35:04 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
"Thufir Hawat" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:55:44 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
The mere fact that you are distributing the software (usually the
binaries, or as firmware) requires the distributor to make the source
(and the very *same* source for the binaries) available. Failing to
do so will put the distributor at odds with copyright law
No shit, Dick Tracy. I simply say that is silly.
And if the source isn't available then where's the attribution? At a
minimum, sounds like plagiarism.
Only if you don't know the meaning of the term.
How can not attributing source *which you downloaded*, and then choose to
distribute in binary *not*, at least ethical, require attribution?
I don't understand what you are posting here. Are you missing something
that ties non-attribution to plagiarism?
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
