also sprach John Galt <galt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2002.04.27.0106 +0200]:
> >However, his patches are patches *of Linux*, and so if he distributes
> >the patched Linux, he is required to distribute the full source,
> >because Linux is copyable only under the terms of the GPL and that's
> >what the GPL requires. If he doesn't like that, his only option is to
> >refrain from copying the Linux binaries at all.
>
> I'm really wondering why you even bothered to point this out. You restate
> my point rather complicatedly and mostly wrongly, then added a huge assed
> dose of the obvious. Why?
chill hey! gosh, legal issues always make people so belligerent ;^>!
this is, after all, not always straight forward as in the books. in
fact, i claim to have understood most of the license, and your
explanations, and i am still confused in certain cases. granted, this
one is answered rather easily (now that i know what to consider and
where to look), but i still appreciate any form of feedback within the
reasonable bounds and as long as nobody purposely acts childish or
stupidly. this ain't no offense, john.
> BTW, he is only required to provide the GPL'd stuff when asked: there is
> no law, clause, or any other thing on God's green earth that is forcing
> him to give up his rights of authorship in code he wrote (gee, does it
> sound like I'm repeating myself?).
you still have a wonderful way of explaining, quite understandable,
i find...
> Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
on purpose?
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; net@madduck
dimmi in 10 secondi i nomi dei 7 re di roma, in ordine
decrescente di data di morte del figlio secondogenito,
in rot13... o faccio fuori la directory /dev !!!
pgpzEa1fw9JfV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
|
