On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Collins Richey wrote: > On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:10:36 -0400 (EDT) Net Llama! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Collins Richey wrote: > > > http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/14/cz_dl_1014linksys.html > > > > > > This type of legal-schmegal wrangling is what we expect from SCO and its > > > brethren. It smells no better when it comes from OSS. > > > > I see nothing wrong with it. How would you propose that the GPL be > > enforced? > > > > What I read from this is an interpretation of the GPL that could loosely be > expressed as "what is mine is mine, what is yours is also mine." I personally > don't believe that such an interpretation has any real benefit, although I'm > certain that proponents of the GPL might disagree.
There is no interpretation. The GPL clearly & explicitly requires that you release the source for your work, and all derrivitive works. The FSF is enforcing that requirement. I'll ask again, how would you propose that the GPL be enforced, if not via: 0) Polite requests, then if ignored 1) Less polite requests, then if still ignored 2) Legal action -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
