23 Nov
2004
23 Nov
'04
2:48 p.m.
Thomas Weidenmueller wrote:
Ge van Geldorp wrote:
>> You are right. Actually, the main problem comes from a few
>> percentage of non-GPL compatible code, some of them are propitery or
>> some are not compatible with GPL policy. But basically those sources
>> came from some other projects and not coded/written by our devs. I
>> personally was afraid to publish these sources publicly without
>> owners written permission. And due to the fact, team was confused to
>> publish the source tree. But Geldorf, I can assure you more than
>> 100% about its cleanliness and there is NO LEAKED SOURCES FROM
>> WINDOWS/WINDOWS 2000.
>>
>> Sorry Geldorf, I cannot write more for now as I'm going to outside
>> and will be back tomorrow. I'll come with more clarifications when
>> back.
>> Thanks and regards,
>>
>>
>> Refaz Anam
>> Lianasoft Foundation
>>
>
Did they not realize that they were breaking licence agreements just as
much by not publishing the sources as they thought might if they
published the proprietary. They were mixing proprietary and GPL, which
is completely impossible to do, and results in situations like this.
Two choices arise. Refuse to honor proprietary license and GPL it, or
keep it closed and violate GPL of their open source code. What did they
expect?
-Zach