Ben Finney wrote:
> "Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> personally (IANAL) I'd consider whitespace stripping to be a
>> non-issue. After a change that is trivial for any downstream
>> recipient of the code to make (running the afore-mentioned
>> "indent"), the whitespace-stripped c
"Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Evan Prodromou wrote:
>
> personally (IANAL) I'd consider whitespace stripping to be a
> non-issue. After a change that is trivial for any downstream
> recipient of the code to make (running the afore-mentioned
> "indent"), the whitespace-stripped
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> If upstream sued Debian for violating their license for this reason,
> wouldn't the onus of proof then be upon upstream to prove that they
> were lying about what was their preferred form of modification?
> Given that, I'm not sure a judge would be ver
Evan Prodromou wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-30-01 at 11:54 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
>> This refrain keeps getting repeated, but still no one has explained
>> how distributing a form of the work which is _not_ the prefered form
>> for modification satisfies section 3 of the GPL:
>
> So, I think we
Don Armstrong wrote:
> Unfortunatly, there's not much that can be done to protect us from
> this latter case. If upstream wants to lie about which is the prefered
> form for modification, our choice is either to stop distributing or
> pony up when they sue us for violating their license and prove
5 matches
Mail list logo
