🚀 go-pugleaf

Arthur Kreitman (artk@Congruent.COM) wrote:
:   Let me tell you exactly what occured.  Our initial plans were to both 
: release the source code for the dll and assign it to the FSF.  Prior to
: that occuring we got involved in a discussion with the FSF regarding 
: the interpertation of what was a very minor point in the GPL.  To say
: that the position taken by the FSF was doctrinaire doesn't approach a 
: true representation of how inflexible they were.  At that point we 
: decided that there was no reason to do anything more then the minimum
: required under the GPL. 

The above is not "exactly what occured" because you haven't told us
what the "very minor" point is.

If you truely wanted to release the source code you could've done that
without any reference to the FSF. If you dislike the GPL you could've
released it under a modified GPL or any other licence of your choice.
The fact that you haven't released it (not even the binary) tells us
that you never intended to do so and whatever concession you tried to
extort out of the FSF was a mere smoke screen. Further evidence in this
regard is the fact that you made it as difficult as you possibly can for
your customers to obtain even the source code they have a legal right
to.

It is one the absurdities of life that a regular GNU basher like you is
making his living parasitizing off their hard work. And to add insult to
injury, you are whining about the fact that they won't change their
long-held and carefully thought out principles for your sake. In other
words, you're not content to be a simple parasite but aspire to be a
parasitoid.

Please understand that I don't really care if you release the source code
or not, but I do (intensely) dislike subterfuge.

--