|
From: | amicus_curious |
Subject: | Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar |
Date: | Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:53:55 -0500 |
"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.koehlmann@arcor.de> wrote in message news:49a2b55e$0$31327$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
amicus_curious wrote:"Thufir Hawat" <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote in message news:vlsol.15169$Si4.13021@newsfe22.iad...On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:52:22 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:You're begging the question. Your "conclusion" is that the source need only be available if it's been modified, and, since the source wasn't modified, then it need not be available.I am not arguing the meaning of the text contained in the GPL, I am saying that, unless the code has been modified in some useful way, then it is of no value to the community.So you don't dispute the legality of the GPL? You're just find it inconvenient? If so, then don't distribute GPL'd software and go about your business.I wouldn't think of distributing it. I also think that suing someone over not distributing it is just a silly ego trip for the authors.Nobody gets sued for "not distributing" GPLed software. You sound dumber by the second
Have you so soon forgotten Monsoon Software and the others? They were sued for not distributing the GPL source.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |