Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I expect that if a contributor has an uncommon interpretation of the > license requirements, he should check.
I suspect that few people think a GPL'd installer of Microsoft Word would be compliant with the GPL. That's a reasonable analogy, right? A hardcoded string, copied to some device which runs it, and maybe with some additional setup. > On top of that, one of the earliest places I can find that Richter > contributed code was in ... reworking the USB serial device support > (the very thing he complained infringed his copyrights). It makes me > wonder if he took debate lessons from debial-legal -- or vice versa. Your repeated insults to the people here are not convincing anyone. Do they help you reason better? If not, I suggest that they are counterproductive. To put this in more concrete terms: the copyright holder for some of the code Debian distributes claims that his license is being violated. What do you suggest we do? It appears that you suggest we ignore him or tell him that his interpretation of copyright law is incorrect. That doesn't seem very nice. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
