Re: software licensing
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com> writes:
> I'm specifically talking about the GPLed code included in KDE which
> was not written for KDE.
> I don't think we should be distributing those parts of KDE any more than
> any other software which we don't have a license to distribute.
That's what I thought, and I totally agree. I wish there was more we
could do about it, but if the owners of the original code don't want
to pursue it, our hands would seem to be tied. Oh well.
(Incidentally, as for the other part of this discussion, I think I
should probably bow out, as I have explained my position and am now
just repeating myself. Suffice it to say that if I had a piece of
GPLed code and I found out that someone was abusing it as this
hypothetical employer is, I would most definitely exercise my rights
and I think I would have good chance of winning a lawsuit, if it came
to that.)
- --Rob
- --
Rob Tillotson N9MTB <robt@debian.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBNe3mtXR+ngWruQ4VAQE7jwP9H4re68PSSz9lV9afb4J59giNnafpt0vg
k7kyV4WYC29HTTXPa1sxEv6RWHGs2CzXc0zZB2KoFfNvBsDzrD0X6mhTbulnGsK6
PmFtLJ14zOT1FTmp8CpJBSubNPeZMXOLqXMdQMM/gurgjD/RBLonOKJbsJX/DtT7
Do+rajAGPTE=
=jMMy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: