🚀 go-pugleaf

"Tom Whittaker" <whittaker@home.com> writes:
> You obviously have never released software. Its not like
I have ... and i never had problem with waiting to release
the binary until i had cleaned up the source.

> companies have their in-house tools lying around packaged
> nicely, all documented and friendly. Give them some time
> to put together a development kit with source, examples and
> documentation. They didn't say they wouldn't release it, the
> just asked for some time.

Yes, but that means that they currently have something online 
in binary version that they can't publish in source (e.g.
with third party libs in it or the like, they told me they 'have
to check some legal things on a couple of tools in the package 
that might be owned by somebody else'). This might really 
become a problem: They distributed the binary. The gpl requires
them to release the source, too. But doing so may violate some
other licenses.

I don't expect them to have everything lying around distribution 
ready all time. But they decided to use gpl software (noone enforces 
them to do that and there are excellent commercial palm compilers
out there) and there is no reason for them not to follow the gpl 
rules.

Once a company starts breaking the gpl just a little bit, the
next one will perhaps do it just a little more ...

Ciao,
  Till