On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:35:04 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: > "Thufir Hawat" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:55:44 -0500, amicus_curious wrote: >> >>>> The mere fact that you are distributing the software (usually the >>>> binaries, or as firmware) requires the distributor to make the source >>>> (and the very *same* source for the binaries) available. Failing to >>>> do so will put the distributor at odds with copyright law >>>> >>> No shit, Dick Tracy. I simply say that is silly. >> >> >> And if the source isn't available then where's the attribution? At a >> minimum, sounds like plagiarism. >> > Only if you don't know the meaning of the term.
How can not attributing source *which you downloaded*, and then choose to distribute in binary *not*, at least ethical, require attribution? -Thufir _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
