|
From: | amicus_curious |
Subject: | Re: Copyright Misuse Doctrine in Apple v. Psystar |
Date: | Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:03:47 -0500 |
"Thufir Hawat" <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote in message news:T9jol.24565$uG1.12811@newsfe16.iad...
You seem to be fixated on the text of the GPL. I don't disagree with what it says. I disagree with the notion that it has any practical value. It is just an ego trip for the author to see his stuff scattered around the internet. It doesn't help a soul, just gives the author a thrill. The author, of course, could get some help from a psychiatrist and the whole issue could be put to bed.On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:14:47 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:"Thufir Hawat" <hawat.thufir@gmail.com> wrote in message news:do0ol.50595$xK6.48752@newsfe12.iad...On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:39:24 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:The FOSS value proposition is that if you use it, fine, and if you modify it and distribute it you must disclose your modifications.Who says?Do you have some other interpretation? It would be useful for you to state it.It's not that if you *modify and distribute* it that you must disclose your modifications, but that if you *distribute* you must disclose the source, at least for the GPL.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |