All agreements are important, and our intention is never to violate any
agreements. Why is Max asking us to further violate additional agreements as a
remedy in violating one? We now understand the GPL terms, but it would seem
counterintuitive to expose ourselves to multiple parties. We have no problem
issuing our code once detangled from other libraries, which we did but it seems
unsatisfactory to Max. We will not knowingly violate any additional
agreements. The violation of the MPD was not done knowingly and with zero
malicious intent, and we are stopping distribution of the MPD use with other
third-party libraries. Furthermore, all boxes that have it will be forced to
update to remove any MPD violations, meaning very shortly there will be zero
units in the field with MPD violations.
Billy Wright | President | LinkedIn
6301 Chapel Hill Road | Raleigh, NC 27607
Click here to sign up to receive our monthly enewsletters!
From: Ben Boeckel [mailto:maths...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 10:21 AM
To: Billy Wright <bi...@caryaudio.com>
Cc: Max Kellermann <m...@duempel.org>; firstname.lastname@example.org; Daryl Berk
Subject: Re: [mpd-devel] Request for GPL source code of
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 17:26:58 +0000, Billy Wright wrote:
> We are not going to release any source code involving our third party
> partners as this would be clear violations of our agreements with
This here seems to be the root of the misunderstanding.
Why is violation of these agreement(s) more important than the violation of the
agreement required in order to use MPD source code? The GPL is the agreement
that defines the terms under which MPD may be used, no different than any
private agreements which Cary Audio signed up for in order to use those the
mentioned third party partners' code.
Max is asking that you abide by those terms. If you cannot, then Cary Audio's
distribution of MPD is an infringement of copyright and further distribution
mpd-devel mailing list