[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A newbie's confusion about GPL



On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:35:06 +0800, 
Dasn Cups <dasn@users.sf.net> wrote in message 
<20031018153505.GA1021@Lain>:

> On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 11:09:08AM -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> > If you use GPL'd code and distribute the results and refuse to hand
> > out the source code, the copyright holder of the GPL'd code can sue
> > you for copyright violation.
> > 
> > If you really meant code owned by the GNU project, the copyright
> > holder is most likely the Free Software Foundation (FSF), and they
> > would sue you, if it came to that.
> 
> The problem is that if I refuse to hand out the source code, who will
> know that I used GPL'd code? By disassembling?

..if you also refuse to hand out your binaries and any derivative
products made from said source, nobody.  ;-)

..if you instead plan to violate copyright and the GPL, you face our
wrath just like the Serious Con Operation Group of Lindon, Utah.

..the SCO sued to get bought by IBM, but forgot about old fashion values
such as honor, decency, honesty and copyright to your own property and
Doing the Right Thing.  It appears IBM and Red Hat acts honorably on it.

..for samples, google "SCO Linux".   SCO claims they have 350 and
Microsoft 25 000 "coders", and they are up against 20 million of us, 
the GPL and US copyright law, and, face it, we and they too all knows 
_who_ is on the right side.  ;-)

..you saw the Twin Towers fall.  If _I_ need to let Osama and Saddam
walk or steamroll your ass in court to get the SCO, I will do just that.
Am I clear?

-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.



Reply to: