🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <yksd7uclibg.fsf@flens.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>,
Till Harbaum  <harbaum@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> wrote:
>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.

It sounds like they screwed up by not realizing the implications of
releasing software that was derived from code with incompatible licenses.
It sounds like they're trying to resolve it as best they can, but it will
take a couple of weeks to work out the issues.  What more do you expect
them to do?

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.