29 Jul
2009
29 Jul
'09
9:57 a.m.
On Wednesday 29 July 2009 02:53:35 Arnout Engelen wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:38:18PM -0400,
laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
No it is entirely right and you are showing that you do not even know
the most basic thing about the GPL. Everybody who has read the GPL
properly knows what I wrote is true.
Whether he wanted to or not, use of GPL code
makes it GPL code. That is
the viral nature of GPL. (...) The code is automatically GPL by way of
use of other GPL code.
This is actually entirely wrong. For someone constantly (and rudely) insisting others
should 'listen',
'stick with the facts', 'read', 'learn' etc., it'd be nice if
you returned
the favour.
Get of the high horse of moral superiority here. You are wrong, so this
statement is really ridiculous after the fact.
You cannot claim someone failed to distribute software under the GPL, and
at the same time take said software and excercise the rights that *would*
have been granted to you *if* the software was distributed under the GPL.
I never claimed the person "failed to distribute software under the GPL".
I always claimed that the GPL was being violated.
Here we have yet another person who is probably responding out of emotion than
logic. Go back and check every message I wrote. You will not find me having
written what you said.
An apology for making false accusations would be fitting.
I always believed the software is under the GPL and that is why I pursued this
matter in the first place. To make sure everyone gets their guaranteed rights
in accord with the license the program is being distributed under.
You might want to read the multiple times I wrote something to that effect
also.
Raymond