25 Jul
2009
25 Jul
'09
5:04 p.m.
laseray(a)gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 25 July 2009 14:09:26 you wrote:
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
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.