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.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
09:50:17 up 21 days, 7:26, 5 users, load average: 0.11, 0.10, 0.04
|
|
