Mark A. Hershberger wrote:
> And the GPL gives him that right, but it also demands something in
> return — that he publish the source to his patch.
Basically what it demands is that the author surrender the ability to
choose how his/her work should be licensed and released. Seriously,
living in America, I'm surprised that I'm the only one that sees that as
unequivocally wrong.
> 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.
Mostly because as I correctly asserted earlier, this is the appearance
of the FSF just looking for cash.
> Do you think Cisco is above the law?
I believe the law is severely broken. Any law that permits someone to
license their software in such a way that you can compel another person
to do something with work that they have done, even if they don't want
to, is flat out wrong.
J
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/15/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST