Don Armstrong wrote:
Unfortunatly, there's not much that can be done to protect us from
this latter case. If upstream wants to lie about which is the prefered
form for modification, our choice is either to stop distributing or
pony up when they sue us for violating their license and prove
Evan Prodromou wrote:
On Tue, 2007-30-01 at 11:54 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
This refrain keeps getting repeated, but still no one has explained
how distributing a form of the work which is _not_ the prefered form
for modification satisfies section 3 of the GPL:
So, I think we all
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
If upstream sued Debian for violating their license for this reason,
wouldn't the onus of proof then be upon upstream to prove that they
were lying about what was their preferred form of modification?
Given that, I'm not sure a judge would be very
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Evan Prodromou wrote:
personally (IANAL) I'd consider whitespace stripping to be a
non-issue. After a change that is trivial for any downstream
recipient of the code to make (running the afore-mentioned
indent), the whitespace-stripped code is
Ben Finney wrote:
Kevin B. McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
personally (IANAL) I'd consider whitespace stripping to be a
non-issue. After a change that is trivial for any downstream
recipient of the code to make (running the afore-mentioned
indent), the whitespace-stripped code is
5 matches
Mail list logo
