On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > The answer to the question in the subject is simple: NO. > > Thankyou for your opinion. I note you seemed to neglect to mention > that you're not a lawyer.
That should be abundantly apparent to anyone who has been paying attention. Regardless, it doesn't dismiss the crux of the argument: baring competent legal advice to the contrary,[1] distributing sourceless GPLed works is not clear of legal liability. Doing otherwise may put ourselves and our mirror operators in peril. Don Armstrong 1: And frankly, I'd be suspicious of the source of any legal advice claiming that violating the letter of the GPL was something that could be done without any concern for liability. -- I now know how retro SCOs OSes are. Riotous, riotous stuff. How they had the ya-yas to declare Linux an infant OS in need of their IP is beyond me. Upcoming features? PAM. files larger than 2 gigs. NFS over TCP. The 80's called, they want their features back. -- Compactable Dave http://www3.sympatico.ca/dcarpeneto/sco.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
