[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