On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:54:50PM -0800, Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr. wrote: > He was redistributing *prerelease* code that SveaSoft *had not yet > released*. GPL or no, companies do not have to provide source code for > software that they do not release.
However one describes the process, the code was distributed by sveasoft. It doesn't matter whether they are termed betas, pre-releases, experimental code, or release candidates, it is released code. I agree with your second sentence. > In addition, if I remember correctly, the full amount of threats > consisted of terminating the offender's subscription to SveaSoft. > Severing a business association is an action which most businesses are > allowed to do for just about any reason >From my perspective (the one from which I made my comments) this appears to be more than severing a business association: http://wrt54g.thermoman.de/ > Now, SveaSoft may be jerks. You can decide not to deal with them > because they are jerks (I consider this to be a good idea). I agree. > The situation is far from as clear as you make it seem. However, if > you can provide a letter from the GNU guys saying to the contrary, I > would be willing to change my mind. I not interested in changing your mind. Here's more reading material for those interested. http://slashdot.org/~Featureless/journal/ Cory -- Cory Petkovsek Adapting Information Adaptable IT Consulting Technology to Your (858) 705-1655 Business [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.AdaptableIT.com -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
