On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:25 AM, Patrick Shirkey <pshirkey@boosthardware.com> wrote:

This whole problem could have been solved if you had originally provided Ray with access to the source when he asked for it, but in essence you should be making your code available from the start at a public location.

I did make the code available when he asked for it, as I've already stated. My understanding of the GPL is that it is not essential to post the code publicly, as long as it is made available on request. I certainly did that.

Sorry, I missed this previous statement. In this case then I don't see how you have violated the terms of the GPL. If you provided the code when requested that should have been enough.

I read in Ray's earlier posts on the issue that he had not received any code.

As far as I can tell, no parties in this group are damaged as a result of our efforts to provide the fruits of our labors. If there are developers who think they were damaged, they should write to me and state the case, then we can try to resolve it. However, I must speculate that this is very unlikely; we treat our developers as colleagues, not as adversaries.

Certainly your own party has been damaged due to the controversy that has been stirred. However I don't see it as a permanent problem as it seems that Ray has made his point and you have come to the party and clarified the issue, even going so far as to publically release your latest version of the code on Source Forge, IIUC.

Warmest regards.

Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd