On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 06:11:04PM -0700, RBW wrote:
> Speaking of SCO going away with the "they stole our code" screed... GPL
> requirments have to strike a balance downstream to facilitate innovation...
>
> "_A GPL requirement could have a chilling effect on derivative distro_
> <http://software.newsforge.com/software/06/06/23/1728205.shtml>,"
> Woodford recently ran afoul of the GNU GPL (General Public License)
> requirement that downstream distributors of GPL code are obligated to
> provide source code to users in an easily accessible format.
>
> Woodford's error was that while he does provide _MEPIS_
> <http://www.mepis.com>'s modified Debian/Ubuntu kernel source code in a
> Debian source-package, he had not provided copies of the source code
> that was available somewhere, which he had not modified.
> http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4218186268.html
>
> Of course the development of tools as mentioned will probably make this
> a bump in the road for all intents and purposes... This will be
> interesting to watch as things evolve for everyone all around.
>
> rbw
His mistake was distributing the distro. No application developer should
take that on himself. Why? Specify what you developed it with and let
your users do what they think is best.
--
Lan Barnes
Linux Guy, SCM Specialist
Tcl/Tk Enthusiast
Most undergraduate degrees in computer science these days are basically
Java vocational training.
- Alan Kay
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
