On Jun 26, 2007, Al Boldi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Is it in the spirit of GPLv2?
> No, but that's besides the point.
Thanks for informing me about the point *I*'m trying to make ;-)
> You can only hold people responsible for the letter, lest there be chaos.
That's not *quite* how it works, but that's a general idea, yes.
>> How are the sources passed on in this way going to benefit the user or the
>> community?
> They still have to provide the source by other GPL means of their choosing.
This is contradictory. You said the scenario I described was
permitted, and the scenario included the vendor's refusal to give
customers other copies of the sources.
Which is it?
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
