25 Jul
2009
25 Jul
'09
8:30 p.m.
On Saturday 25 July 2009 18:14:45 you wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 16:23 -0400, laseray(a)gmail.com
wrote:
This is all very moot. This is a very specific case. Just trying to deal with
the practical considerations of this situation right now, not other variations
on how things might unfold. If something changes in the future with
distribution or the license it will get dealt with and reassessed then.
Raymond
On Saturday 25 July 2009 15:53:01 Grammostola
Rosea wrote:
I do not know where these people get there info but it cannot be
the GPL. Thus you have more people that cannot read the GPL properly.
Go to the FSF and read the FAQ, not #gnu. Read the GPL.
GPL is a license the copyright holder may or may not use to distribute
his work. Having done a release under GPL, however, does not further
encumber the copyright holder: he may decide to never release any new
development under GPL or choose, as many people choose, to release only
stable releases.
... >...
> The guy removed the preview version from his website.
> You don't have to release the source of development versions.
Yes you do. This has been explained previously.
I asked this on #gnu , they told me, it is not necessary