[H]omer <spam@xxxxxxx> espoused:
> Verily I say unto thee, that thad05@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx spake thusly:
>
>> Also, it is important to note that the GPL requires that the source
>> code be made available to to anyone receiving the binary, not any old
>> person that asks for it.
>
> Does that also apply to the *authors* of any GPLed work that McAfee may
> have modified and use in their products?
>
> How is one supposed to know in advance whether or not they are in fact
> using such code, if they do not first provide the source so it can be
> audited? They've already admitted that they *are* using GPL software,
> but since the specific details are missing, that naturally raises a few
> questions, and I would think that certain people should be entitled to
> the answers.
>
> That would be like a thief walking into a police station, telling the
> desk officer that he stolen something, refusing to detail exactly *what*
> he'd stolen, then expecting to just go home without being arrested.
>
On this occasion, I think it's something like (in your best Sweeney
voice):
"... we have good reason to believe that you have used open-source
software in this package, and we want you to release the source. Now!
We are the Sweeney, son, and we will be keepin' an eye on you!.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
|
|
