also sprach John Galt <email@example.com> [2002.04.27.0106 +0200]: > >However, his patches are patches *of Linux*, and so if he distributes > >the patched Linux, he is required to distribute the full source, > >because Linux is copyable only under the terms of the GPL and that's > >what the GPL requires. If he doesn't like that, his only option is to > >refrain from copying the Linux binaries at all. > > I'm really wondering why you even bothered to point this out. You restate > my point rather complicatedly and mostly wrongly, then added a huge assed > dose of the obvious. Why? chill hey! gosh, legal issues always make people so belligerent ;^>! this is, after all, not always straight forward as in the books. in fact, i claim to have understood most of the license, and your explanations, and i am still confused in certain cases. granted, this one is answered rather easily (now that i know what to consider and where to look), but i still appreciate any form of feedback within the reasonable bounds and as long as nobody purposely acts childish or stupidly. this ain't no offense, john. > BTW, he is only required to provide the GPL'd stuff when asked: there is > no law, clause, or any other thing on God's green earth that is forcing > him to give up his rights of authorship in code he wrote (gee, does it > sound like I'm repeating myself?). you still have a wonderful way of explaining, quite understandable, i find... > Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. on purpose? -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck dimmi in 10 secondi i nomi dei 7 re di roma, in ordine decrescente di data di morte del figlio secondogenito, in rot13... o faccio fuori la directory /dev !!!
Description: PGP signature