🚀 go-pugleaf

wierda@ltb.ltb.bso.nl (Gerben Wierda) writes:

>>Well, that's no good enough.  The GPL states that if they deliver executables
>>to anybody, they must agree to deliver the sources to that same person if
>>so requested.  They failed to do that with me and other people.

>That's not what I meant. If they are not willing to send (not doing so of
>course turns into not willing after some time) then they do breach GPL. But if
>they gave the changes to the FSF than they have as far as I am concerned
>proven that they do not really hand out the sources out of some principle,
>they just don't distribute properly.

From the GPL:
------------

  The license agreements of most software companies try to keep users
at the mercy of those companies.  By contrast, our General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. ...

  When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price.  Specifically, the General Public License is designed to make
sure that you have the freedom to give away or sell copies of free
software, that you receive source code or can get it if you want it,
that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free
programs; and that you know you can do these things.

  For example, if you distribute copies of a such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code.  And you must tell them their rights.

----

This seems pretty straight forward.  They have an obligation to each of
the customers.  FSF is not obligated to give out the sources they
got from NeXT, so it doesn't help that they got the sources.

-- 
Forever, Miron Cuperman <miron@cs.sfu.ca>