[LAD] Impro-Visor packages now on SF

[Grammostola Rosea]

laseray at gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday 25 July 2009 14:09:26 you wrote:
>   
>> While you have every right to fork the code, one quibble I have (most
>> likely just with your wording) is where you say that they are
>> obligated to provide the binary. They have no such obligation
>> whatsoever. If they provide a binary they are obligated to provide
>> source, but they are free to offer neither without violating the GPL.
>>     
>
>
> Okay, it was just a quick wording, so don't misconstrue my meaning.
> The binaries were out, under GPL, source has to be available
> then in accord with the license. That is what this is about.
>
>
>   
The guy removed the preview version from his website.
You don't have to release the source of development versions.
You don't have to make your source available, but people who gets your 
binaries should be able to get the source too.

Mmhh I'd rather saw a better corporation here.  I don't know who is 
non-coorporative here though, Raymond or Bob Keller.

Maybe it would be good to invite  Bob Keller  for a reasonable  
dialogue  on this list. I like to hear his opinion about corporation. 
After such a public discussion we can decide whether there are good 
reasons to bundle forces on _his_ project or to fork it.

my 2 cents,

\r