Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> writes: > On 2/18/2010 12:46 PM, RJack wrote: >> They're *your* unverified claims. Neither myself nor, I doubt, anyone >> else is going to foolishly carry *your* burden and produce *your* >> "facts" for you. > > Your "facts" require the belief that after settling the lawsuits, > the defendants set up the ability for customers to obtain GPLed > sources, but then provide sources that do not match the binaries > being distributed. (For it is incontrovertible that those GPL > download sites exist.) That beggars belief. > >> The "sequence" you postulate is simply an unverified string of events. > > Only anti-GPL cranks find this to be true.
Let's not forget that the Cisco(?) case was mainly about Cisco "dragging its feet" with regard to compliance, namely _not_ timely making available the _corresponding_ sources to new versions. So it would appear that verifying the matching version is easy enough for legal purposes. Also, providing non-matching sources intentionally in order to _feign_ license compliance is fraud, which is a criminal offense. While our local cranks have no qualms assuming that companies will happily commit fraud just to let our court jesters here hop in glee, that is hardly to be expected in reality. After all, the main point of the GPLed sources is to let people inclined to do so make their local changes. If that renders the router unfunctional even without the local changes, that would be rather obvious. If it _does_ not render the router unfunctional, where is the point in providing different functional sources? Sure, it is work to diligently verify actual compliance, but there is nothing to be gained by the company providing different sources. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss