[Lazarus] Lazarus platform "popularity contest"

Ger Remmers ger-remmers at kc.rr.com
Thu Aug 12 18:50:46 CEST 2010


On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:26:53 Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:


> 
> At first sight that appears to be a valid position. However considering
> the case below Westinghouse weren't claiming that they owned BusyBox,
> merely distributing it with complete disregard for the license. Hence
> the owner /does/ have a right to know it's being used, even if the user
> is entirely silent about what they're doing with the software.

Not wanting to disclose what one uses a program for does not equal disregard 
of the license.

> 
> The fact that in some cases the owner goes on record as saying that he's
> not currently interested doesn't mean that he doesn't have the right to
> know.
> 
> > I wasn't aware of that ( I don't keep tabs on the software world).
> 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/04/gpl_violation_westinghouse/
> 
> With respect, if you aren't aware of what's going on you might refrain
> from commenting on who's got rights to do what.

Not knowing who gets robbed by whom doesn't make it that I wouldn't know 
robbing is against the law.

> Anyway, this probably
> isn't a good place to continue this subthread.

What place is better?




More information about the Lazarus mailing list