Joined: Mar. 2005
||Posted: June 19 2008,00:17
|Quote (JohnMurga @ June 18 2008,19:59)|
|Quote (lucky13 @ June 18 2008,23:40)|
|I *have* read the license and it doesn't restrict anyone from "butchering" or doing whatever they want, so long as they make the sources available (order the freaking sources CD yet?!) and make the proper copyright attributions. Now answer this: Where has DSL complied with these terms before your panties got all twisted up because they decided the bindings were useful even if the way YOU chose to use them weren't in the best interests for DSL? If you've wanted compliance, you're kind of late to the party. Hypocrite.|
OK, you are pretty sad ...
And don't read very well :-)
Actually you decided what the reality was a long time ago, and I guess you are consistent because you are sticking to it despite all the evidence to the contrary ... So I'll give you a senility kudos if you like ;-)
Do you always handle it this badly when people disagree with you ?
Terms 1) and 2) (sections a) and c)) are being violated, and some of the source is already being distributed in DSL without attributions ... I don't need to order the CDs to see that as the violations are occurring regardless of that (as I have tried to explain 4 times - my hard headed friend).
Go on do some basic research yourself.
Wait, isn't the mugralua bindings that dsl uses mostly un-interactive? Isn't it used to simple run a script, which the script asks for input?
Then how is 2c of the gpl 2 being violated?