7 Aug
2009
7 Aug
'09
8:51 a.m.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Ralf Mardorf<ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net> wrote:
Chris Cannam wrote:
For emphasis, I just want to paste that sentence (and the following
one) again for Raymond, with attribution:
Eben Moglen, attorney for the FSF: "The claim that a GPL violation
could lead to the forcing open of proprietary code that has wrongfully
included GPL'd components is simply wrong. There is no provision in
the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on
altered terms. "
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Raymond
Martin<laseray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
"The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of
proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply
wrong." What possible counter-argument can there be
left?
http://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ (same guy you just cited, explaining
why you're wrong)
Chris