On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:26:53 Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> > At first sight that appears to be a valid position. However considering > the case below Westinghouse weren't claiming that they owned BusyBox, > merely distributing it with complete disregard for the license. Hence > the owner /does/ have a right to know it's being used, even if the user > is entirely silent about what they're doing with the software. Not wanting to disclose what one uses a program for does not equal disregard of the license. > > The fact that in some cases the owner goes on record as saying that he's > not currently interested doesn't mean that he doesn't have the right to > know. > > > I wasn't aware of that ( I don't keep tabs on the software world). > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/04/gpl_violation_westinghouse/ > > With respect, if you aren't aware of what's going on you might refrain > from commenting on who's got rights to do what. Not knowing who gets robbed by whom doesn't make it that I wouldn't know robbing is against the law. > Anyway, this probably > isn't a good place to continue this subthread. What place is better? -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus