"Jeremy Sliwinski (mailing list account)" <listbox@unix-boy.com> writes:
> I'm not arguing that a patch and enhancement writer should
> have rights beyond the code that they actually write.
One of the rights the patch author does not have is the right to
distribute binaries of the software with his patch applied — unless the
author of the original software has given him that right.
And the GPL gives him that right, but it also demands something in
return — that he publish the source to his patch.
Returning to what started this thread: Cisco does not have the right to
publish modified binaries of GPLed software without meeting the terms of
the GPL: releasing the source.
Assuming that Cisco is distributing GPLed binaries without the source,
they are violating the law. You've indicated that you don't think the
FSF should win.
Do you think Cisco is above the law?
Mark.
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/15/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST