23 Nov
2004
23 Nov
'04
8:46 a.m.
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
>
>
lol that's a good joke. This guy pretends to be a lawyer - and yes,
that's what lawyers do/agree with: Pirate binaries from Microsoft and
fake copyright. Sure, how can one be sure they didn't use leaked sources
(even though I doubt they wrote anything apart from some minor GUI
changes)...
Thomas