how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| reply to yock
Re: Which GPL? said by yock:Yeah, the "alpha" moniker is nonsense. The GPL doesn't care about the release status of a product, only that the source code must be available either via download or in the software package itself. This may end up being one of those "who cares?" moments, though. Sveasoft has complied with the GPL for this long, even if they do just barely fall into compliance. I just don't see the FSF getting to deeply involved unless OpenWRT really pushes hard. In the end, by kicking around Sveasoft, OpenWRT is only pushing back the cause of for-profit free software. That isn't in anyone's best interest. That is the heart of GPL. If Sveasoft, or anyone else violates the GPL, and the violator isn't called to task there will be no free/open source software. Sveasoft should abide by the rules, or remove the GPL'd code from their product, period. If that puts their lame ass out of business, tough shit! There is nothing wrong with writing code for profit, but you can't privatize GPL'd open source code, which is what they've done. I do not wish Sveasoft any luck whatsoever in violating the GPL. I hope the FSF sues, and I hope Sveasoft gets their ass handed to them in a court of law. | |
 yockTFTCPremium
join:2000-11-21
Miamisburg, OH
kudos:3 | Thus far, Sveasoft hasn't really privatized any code of substance. This was an internal build meant for alpha testing, not a public alpha or beta. Now, I'm no GPL expert and I can't speak to how it falls in line with compliance, but common sense tells me that OpenWRT is cashing in on Sveasoft's recent unpopularity. If it happens that the FSF cares to get involved, then I'll change my tune, but until then OpenWRT really needs to get a grip and realize just who they're hurting.
--
Wiki Wiki
First of all, if what I write appears to be too simplified, please excuse me. --Martin | |
|
