Rjack wrote:
The SFLC pleaded the GPL license
The SFLC explained that code was licensed only under the GPL, which requires that sources be properly distributed, and in no other way. They further explain that since the defendants were not distributing sources properly, they are not distributing under the only permitted license, and so are violating the copyrights of the rights holders. This is exactly the approach the FSF has taken for years; acceptance of the GPL isn't something pressed upon defendants by plaintiffs, it is a defense that defendants can assert in response to a claim of copyright violation. Whence they settle and make sources available. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
