On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 6:41 PM, David Jeske <dav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If an employee acts improperly and releases a binary which contains both > GPL > and non-GPL code, the GPL says the source code must be released. There are > no provisions for "withdrawing" the distribution. The moment it happens, > the > company is infringing the GPL and can face legal action. Further, if source > code were improperly distributed, rather than be able to use their > copyright > of their own code to prevent it's use or distribution, the world can use > the > fact that it "is not independent and separate" from GPL code to argue that > the entire code must be GPL and thus be free. This is too great a risk for > a > company to operate under. > And it doesn't strike you as strange that there is 'great risk' in keeping your changes to yourself (while profiting from 'costless' labor of others) while passing the changes back to the project is pretty much the textbook definition of a 'mutually beneficial relationship'?
Not even a little strange? Almost like it was intentional even? Dan _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
