> Because the GPL isn't "free" software. Any license that _forces_ someone
> to release their source code tramples on the rights of the author to decide
> how the code _they_ wrote is controlled. That certainly is not "free."
>
According to the license, a developer is obligated to release
source-code if binaries are distributed of a derivative work which
uses GPL'ed source-code. In the case of Cisco, it is clear that the
networking giant was modifying source and then distributing binaries
of GPL'ed code -- the license makes it clear that they have to release
the source code to their derivative work if they distribute it.
> The GPL makes the right of the person using the software override the right
> of the person who worked on the software.
>
I have problems seeing your logic. If what you said was true, then
Cisco should be the one suing? I don't get it... Maybe you don't
either - was that the point?
Take Care,
Charles Paul
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/12/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST