Re: Is the GPL all encompassing?

[Hyman Rosen]

amicus_curious wrote:
> That does not matter.

It matters, because if Verizon isn't distributing the program,
they have no responsibility to distribute the source. Actiontec
provides both the binaries and the sources. I expect the BusyBox
developers didn't feel it was worthwhile to pursue Verizon in
this case.

> The manufactures simply used the Busy Box software unmodified.
> That is a casual user in my lexicon.

Oh. I'll have to remember not to use your lexicon, then.

> All they have is the recognition and they are lusting after that.
> That is egocentric behavior in my assessment.

What they want is for people who receive BusyBox to also receive
its sources. It is the responsibility of those who distribute
BusyBox to also distribute the exact version of the source used
to build the version they distribute. For a company, an operating
business, to be so careless about the licensing of its software
is plain stupid.

> I don't think that many people who are FOSS or OSS fans would concur 
> with that.

You can ask them. You already have my vote.

> If any progress is made, it should be available to anyone who can
> avail themselves of it.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
Why are you a Communist? That is a completely discredited ideology.

> it is silly to deny the original progress just because some additional
> paths are not also provided.

Anyone may avail themselves of the progress, but they must pay
the cost. "Freedom isn't free."